CONTAINER TERMINAL ACCESS STUDY Year 2003 Update

CONTAINER TERMINAL ACCESS STUDY Year 2003 Update

October 27, 2003

6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 ph: (206) 523-3939 fx: (206) 523-4949

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Terminal Locations and Study Area.......................................................................................... 1

2. PORT VOLUMES........................................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Historic and Existing Container Volumes................................................................................. 2 2.2. Future Container Forecasts...................................................................................................... 10 2.3. Intermodal Volumes ................................................................................................................ 13 2.4. Truck Volumes ........................................................................................................................ 16 2.5. Summary of Container Forecasts ............................................................................................ 19

3. TRUCK TRAVEL ROUTES......................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Trip Distribution Pattern for Port Trucks ................................................................................ 21 3.2. Truck Origins and Destinations............................................................................................... 22 3.3. Port Trucks on Local Streets ................................................................................................... 27 3.4. Truck Percentage of Total Traffic Volume ............................................................................. 31 3.5. Key Corridors .......................................................................................................................... 31

4. PROJECTS NOW IN PLANNING/DESIGN................................................................................ 33 5. IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ............................................................................................................ 43

5.1. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................... 43 5.2. Pavement Conditions............................................................................................................... 45 5.3. Key Corridors and Improvement Needs for Terminal 5 Traffic.............................................. 46 5.4. Key Corridors and Improvement Needs for Terminal 18 Traffic............................................ 47 5.5. Key Corridors and Improvement Needs for Terminal 46 Traffic............................................ 48 5.6. Key Corridors and Improvement Needs for Terminal 115 Traffic.......................................... 49

6. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................... 49 6.1. West Marginal Way Corridor.................................................................................................. 49 6.2. Surface Spokane Street Corridor and Swing Bridge ............................................................... 51 6.3. East Marginal Way Corridor ................................................................................................... 54 6.4. Spokane Street Viaduct ........................................................................................................... 61 6.5. SIG Yard Access and Rail Crossing Enhancements ............................................................... 62 6.6. SR-519 Corridor ...................................................................................................................... 63 6.7. Alaskan Way Viaduct Planning .............................................................................................. 65 6.8. Other Improvements................................................................................................................ 66

7. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................... 67 7.2. Priority..................................................................................................................................... 71

FIGURES

Figure 1. Study Area and Container Terminal Locations....................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Historic Container Volumes at the Port of Seattle .................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Historic Import and Export Volumes...................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Historic Empty and Full Container Volumes.......................................................................... 6 Figure 5. West Coast Container Volumes – 1990 and 2000 .................................................................. 7 Figure 6. West Coast Market Share – 1990 and 2000............................................................................ 8 Figure 7. Year 2002 Import and Export Percentages - All Terminals.................................................... 9 Figure 8. Container Volumes by Month - Average of Five Years (1998 - 2002) ................................ 10 Figure 9. Growth in Container Volumes (TEUs) ................................................................................. 12 Figure 10. Terminal Truck Volume by Time of Day .......................................................................... 18 Figure 11. Year 2015 Container Throughput Summary – TEUs per Year........................................... 19 Figure 12. Year 2015 Intermodal Volume Summary – Boxes per Week............................................. 20 Figure 13. Year 2015 Truck Trips Summary – Trips per Day ............................................................. 20 Figure 14. Truck Origin & Destination Pattern – Year 2015 with No Change in Carrier Locations... 24 Figure 15. Truck Origin & Destination Pattern – Year 2015 with Scenario A .................................... 25 Figure 16. Truck Origin & Destination Pattern – Year 2015 with Scenario B .................................... 26 Figure 17. Existing (2002) Port Truck Trips – Average Daily Trips ................................................... 28 Figure 18. Year 2015 Port Truck Trips – No Changes - Average Daily Trips..................................... 29 Figure 19. Year 2015 Port Truck Trips – Development Scenario A - Average Daily Trips................ 30 Figure 20. Year 2015 Port Truck Trips – Development Scenario B - Average Daily Trips ................ 31 Figure 21. Spokane Street Viaduct Improvements ............................................................................... 34 Figure 22. SR-519 Improvements – Original Concept......................................................................... 36 Figure 23. SR-519 Alaskan Way Surface Street Improvements .......................................................... 37 Figure 24. East Marginal Way Grade-Separation Project - Preferred Option...................................... 38 Figure 25. Duwamish ITS Project - Phase 2 ........................................................................................ 40 Figure 26. SR-509 Extension – Preferred Alternative.......................................................................... 42 Figure 27. Intersection Level of Service Summary - Year 2015 with No Change.............................. 44 Figure 28. Potential Improvement at West Marginal Way/Spokane Street.......................................... 50 Figure 29. Westbound Travel Routes for Various SR-519 Phase 2 Options a...................................... 64

TABLES

Table 1. Year 2002 Container Volumes - TEUs .................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Development Scenarios for CTAS Update............................................................................. 11 Table 3. Year 2015 Container Volume Forecasts - TEUs.................................................................... 13 Table 4. Year 2002 Intermodal Volumes – Boxes per Week ............................................................... 14 Table 5. Year 2015 Intermodal Volumes – Boxes per Week ............................................................... 15 Table 6. Average Weekday Truck Volumes (One-Way Trips)............................................................ 17 Table 7. Year 2015 Distribution Patterns for Port Truck Trips............................................................ 22 Table 8. Average Daily Truck Trips & Origin/Destination Estimates ................................................. 23 Table 9. Port Trucks on Local Streets .................................................................................................. 27 Table 10. Truck Volumes and Percent Trucks at Various Locations ................................................... 32 Table 11. Pavement Condition of Selected Streets............................................................................... 45 Table 12. Daily Truck Volumes Generated by Terminal 5 ................................................................. 46 Table 13. Daily Truck Volumes Generated by Terminal 18 ............................................................... 47 Table 14. Daily Truck Volumes Generated by Terminal 46 ............................................................... 48 Table 15. Spokane Street Swing Bridge Openings – June 1995 .......................................................... 52 Table 16. Train Volume and Delay at East Marginal Way Grade Crossing ........................................ 55 Table 17. PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary – East Marginal Way/Diagonal Avenue .......... 57 Table 18. Improvement Service and Priority....................................................................................... 72

Container Terminal Access Study Update

1. INTRODUCTION The original Port of Seattle Container Terminal Access Study (CTAS) was completed in April 1993. That study developed a set of recommendations to improve land-side rail and roadways to serve the expanding container freight movements associated with the Port’s 1991 Container Terminal Devel-opment Plan. A decade later, the major land-use elements associated with the Container Terminal Development Plan—the expansion of Terminals 5 and 18—are complete, and 29 of the 34 transporta-tion recommendations made in the original CTAS are also complete or in design. The remaining five were deemed infeasible or impractical. Two other major studies of port traffic needs have been per-formed since the original CTAS. These include the Access Duwamish study, a cooperative effort between the City of Seattle and Port of Seattle, which evaluated overall freight transportation needs in the Duwamish industrial area. Another study was the Truck Gate Delay Benchmarking Study and Truck Driver Opinion Survey, which evaluated measures to reduce truck gate delays at the Port’s container terminals. This CTAS Update determines the current state of the roadway network and what additional improvements are needed to serve continued growth at the Port through the year 2015. The primary goals of this study are:

1. To validate or amend the current transportation improvement program for the Port of Seattle. This includes evaluating the purpose and need for projects that are already in the planning stages such as the East Marginal Way Grade-Separation project and the SR-519 project.

2. To determine how different development scenarios could affect existing and future transportation infrastructure needs.

3. To use engineering and planning principals and analysis to support policy-related decisions that the Port may make related to transportation infrastructure improvement needs.

1.1. Terminal Locations and Study Area

There are six container terminals at the Port of Seattle—four active terminals and two that are currently in alternate use:

• Terminal 5 (T-5) in West Seattle • Terminal 18 (T-18) on Harbor Island • Terminal 25 (T-25) on East Marginal Way (currently in alternate use) • Terminal 30 (T-30) on East Marginal Way (currently in alternate use) • Terminal 46 (T-46) on Alaskan Way • Terminal 115 (T-115) up the Duwamish River on West Marginal Way

All but T-115 offer access to deep-draft vessels. As of 2002, T-25 and T-30 are not being used for container freight purposes. T-30 is the new location for Seattle’s second cruise ship terminal, and T-25 has been leased as an intermodal transfer facility for dredge materials, and also will contain a new major cold storage facility by 2005/2006.

- 1 - October 27, 2003


The study area for this project includes most of the City of Seattle neighborhood known as the “Duwamish Industrial Area.” It extends from about Royal Brougham Way on the north to the Duwamish River on the south, and from Interstate 5 on the east to West Marginal Way S on the west. Small sections extend beyond this area, such as the south end of West Marginal Way, which connects to the 1st Avenue S bridge, State Route (SR) 509, and SR-599 on the south side of the Duwamish River. The study area and the location of the container terminals are shown on Figure 1.

2. PORT VOLUMES This section describes the existing and projected future container, intermodal (rail), and truck vol-umes for the Port of Seattle’s container terminals. It provides the base data for comparing various development scenarios and future improvement needs.

2.1. Historic and Existing Container Volumes

Historic Container Volumes

Container traffic at the Port of Seattle has increased steadily over the past three decades as shown on . Between 1992, the baseline year for the original Container Terminal Access Study, and the

year 2002, container volumes (measured in twenty-foot equivalent units or TEUs) have increased roughly 2.1% per year. Over the past 20 years (from 1982 to 2002), the growth rate was roughly 3.0% per year. In October 2002, all major ports on the west coast except Vancouver experienced a labor lockout. Some cargo from Seattle diverted to Vancouver; however, when the terminals were re-opened, additional cargo normally destined to California was diverted to the Port of Seattle. Overall, the Port’s traffic increased by about 10,000 to 15,000 TEUs, which was only about 1% of the total annual volume. Therefore, the overall effect of the lockout was negligible.

Figure 2

- 2 - October 27, 2003

CONTAINER TERMINAL

ACCESS STUDY UPDATE

Figure 1PORT OF SEATTLE VICINITY MAP


Figure 2. Historic Container Volumes at the Port of Seattle

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year

TEU

s pe

r Yea

r

Growth for Past 10 Years = 2.1% per Year

Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003. The percentage of import versus export containers (in TEUs) passing through the Port of Seattle has remained fairly constant over the past 10 years. In 1993, 51% of all containers through the port were imported; in 2002, 51% were imported. In between, the percentage of imports ranged from 50% to 56%. Figure 3 shows the fluctuation of import and export containers during the past ten years.

- 4 - October 27, 2003


Figure 3. Historic Import and Export Volumes

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

TEU

s pe

r Yea

r

Import Export

51%

52% 51%50%

53%53% 56% 55%

53%51%

49%

47%

45%44%47%

47%50%49%48%

49%

Source: Port of Seattle, July 2003. Percentage of import and export containers shown on each bar. Many of the containers shipped through the Port of Seattle are empty. Last year (2002), 25% of the containers through the port were empty (17% exports and 8% imports). This was a record-high percent-age. Since the 1993 CTAS, the trend in empty container shipments has been increasing and will likely continue to increase. Most of this growth relates to the imbalance of full container imports versus full container exports. Along the West Coast (and nationally as well), import volumes exceed export volumes. Consequently, more containers enter the U.S. than are needed to handle U.S. exports. Steamship lines are forced to send large numbers of empty containers back to Asia in order to service U.S. import needs. With imports expected to grow at a faster rate than exports, the percentage of export empties will also increase. Many of these containers are returned to Seattle through the two off-dock intermodal rail yards (SIG and Argo) and are drayed to the container terminals on trucks. Some empty containers are imports, which are often repositioned in Seattle from other West Coast ports. Figure 4 shows the volume of empty and full containers shipped through the Port of Seattle over the past ten years.

- 5 - October 27, 2003


Figure 4. Historic Empty and Full Container Volumes

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

TEU

s pe

r Yea

r

Empty Full

18%18%

19%22% 22%

23%20% 21% 23%

25%

Source: Port of Seattle, July 2003. Percentage of empty containers are shown.

West Coast Market Share

In 1990, the total container volume through all west coast ports was about 8.4 million TEUs; in 2000, this volume had increased to about 13.9 million TEUs. The volumes through each port are summa-rized in Figure 5.

- 6 - October 27, 2003


Figure 5. West Coast Container Volumes – 1990 and 2000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

Long Beach Los Angeles Oakland San Francisco Portland Seattle Tacoma Vancouver

TEU

s pe

r Yea

r

1990 TEUs

2000 TEUs

Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003. Although the Port of Seattle’s container volumes increased between 1990 and 2000, its market share of the total west coast container volume decreased from about 14% to 9%. This is primarily due to the fact that container volumes through the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles increased substantially in this time period as it added new terminals and infrastructure. The neighboring Ports of Vancouver B.C. and Tacoma also significantly increased container terminal infrastructure during this period. The West Coast ports’ market share for 1990 and 2000 are shown on Figure 6.

- 7 - October 27, 2003


Figure 6. West Coast Market Share – 1990 and 2000

Long Beach21%

Los Angeles29%

Oakland15%

San Francisco2%

Portland2%

Tacoma13%

Vancouver4%

Seattle 14%

Long Beach30%

Los Angeles31%

Oakland11%

San Francisco0%

Tacoma9%

Vancouver8%

Seattle 9%

Portland2%

1990 2000

Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003.

Existing Container Volumes – Year 2002

The Port of Seattle had six container terminals in 2002: Terminals 5, 18, 25, 30, and 46 on Elliott Bay, and T-115 on the Duwamish River. These six terminals processed approximately 1.3 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) in 2002. The volume was evenly split between imports (50.3%) and exports (49.7%). By the end of 2002, operations at T-30 were relocated to T-5, and operations at T-25 were relocated to T-18. T-30 has since been redeveloped to accommodate a cruise ship terminal, and T-25 will be used as a short-term intermodal transfer facility for dredge materials being transferred from barge to railcars. Four new rail tracks will be constructed on this site to accommodate this transfer function; however, both the rail and truck volumes associated with this site are expected to be very low for the next few years. Of greater significance at T-25 is the development of a major cold storage facility expected to begin operations in 2005/6. This site will employ 75 to 130 individuals and generate 500 daily truck trips in the T-25 vicinity. The year 2002 volumes are shown in Table 1. The percentage of imports and exports (including the full/empty split) is illustrated in Figure 7.

Table 1. Year 2002 Container Volumes - TEUs

T- 5 T-18 T-25 T-30 T-46 T-115 Total

Full In (Import) 237,086 173,836 2,415 3,530 132,115 - 548,982

Empty In (Import) 6,959 70,995 9,296 2,346 5,461 6,029 101,086

Full Out (Export) 90,035 235,143 11,359 10,108 66,079 6,148 418,872

Empty Out (Export) 72,694 75,365 1,094 3,030 70,668 - 222,851

Total 406,774 555,339 24,164 19,014 274,323 12,177 1,291,791 Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003.

- 8 - October 27, 2003


Figure 7. Year 2002 Import and Export Percentages - All Terminals

Full In (Import)42.5%

Empty In (Import)7.8%

Full Out (Export)32.4%

Empty Out (Export)17.3%

Total Exports = 49.7%

Total Imports = 50.3%

Seasonal Container Volumes

Container volumes vary by month. Figure 8 shows average monthly container volumes through the Port of Seattle for the past five years (1998 – 2002). These show that import volumes typically peak in October as retailers receive goods before the December holidays. Exports also peak in late fall (November). This is likely due to empty containers returning to Asia after the import peak combined with peak harvest exports. Volumes during the peak import month are 7.8% higher than the average month, and volumes during the peak export month are about 10.5% higher than the average month. When the total import-plus-export volume is considered, the peak month occurs in November, and is 6% higher than the average month. These peak seasonal data are used when evaluating peak terminal gate operations and queuing.

- 9 - October 27, 2003


Figure 8. Container Volumes by Month - Average of Five Years (1998 - 2002)

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Aver

age

TEU

s pe

r Mon

th (f

or 5

-Yea

r Per

iod)

Import Export

Peak Import Month = 7.8% Higher than Average Import Peak Export Month = 10.5% Higher than Average Export

Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003.

TEU-to-Box Ratio

Containers used for international trade range in size from 20-foot units to 48-foot units, with the majority of units being 40-foot containers. The 20-foot container is the basis for the standard unit of measure, which is the Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit (TEU). The average container size in TEUs has increased in recent years due to the escalating use of larger containers. In 1988, the average container was 1.48 TEUs, by 1992, this had increased to 1.68 TEUs, and by 2002, it was 1.76 TEUs.

2.2. Future Container Forecasts

Development Scenarios

The CTAS Update evaluates three development scenarios, and compares the impacts of those scenarios to conditions that would exist with the existing harbor layout. Year 2002 is used as the benchmark year for existing conditions because a full year’s worth of the most recent data were avail-able for that year. Year 2015 is the analysis year for all future conditions, and the container volumes are based on the regional growth forecasts. The benchmark (existing) year and the three development scenarios are listed in Table 2.

- 10 - October 27, 2003


Table 2. Development Scenarios for CTAS Update

Name Year Scenario Description

Existing 2002 Existing Conditions Existing harbor layout with container activity at T-5, T-18, T-46, and T-115.

Future No Change in Carrier Locations

2015 No change in current carrier terminal locations

Future growth in container traffic to the year 2015, but no change in the existing harbor layout. No major changes in the utilization of on-dock rail facilities.

Future Scenario A 2015 Major container activity consolidated at T-5 and T-18 with major drayage.

Major container activity consolidated at T-5 and T-18 by year 2015. No major changes in the utilization of on-dock rail facilities at T-5 and T-18.

Future Scenario B 2015 Container activity consolidated at T-5 and T-18 by year 2015 with minimal drayage.

Both T-5 and T-18 maximize use of on-dock rail facilities.

Future Container Forecasts

Future container volumes are forecast through the year 2015 using information in the 1999 Marine Cargo Forecast prepared for the Washington Public Ports Association (WPPA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). This report contains the most recent forecasts avail-able and states that “International container traffic levels for Seattle and Tacoma are forecast to grow 4.3% per year from 1998 through 2020, while domestic trade is expected to grow 1.5% per year for that same period.” In addition, the report states that, “The long-term forecast for containerized exports projects 3.5% average annual growth from 1997 through 2020.” The following specific growth rates were used to predict future year 2015 container volumes at the Port of Seattle:

• Import containers are forecast to grow at 4.8% per year.

• Full export containers are forecast to grow at 3.5% per year.

• Empty export containers are forecast to grow at 4.3% per year to account for the difference between full imports and full exports. This growth rate was derived using the Port of Seattle’s historical trend of increasing empty export containers.

• Domestic traffic from Matson (formerly at T-25) and from the existing tenant at T-115 are forecast to grow at the lower domestic growth rate of 1.5% per year. In addition, a new tenant is expected to occupy another 25 acres of T-115; the additional throughput is assumed to be proportional to the use of the existing 20 acres at this terminal.

Figure 9 shows how container traffic is forecast to increase by the year 2015 for all Port-owned container terminals.

- 11 - October 27, 2003


Figure 9. Growth in Container Volumes (TEUs)

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Year

TEU

s pe

r Yea

r

Import Export

Source: Heffron Transportation based on growth rates in the 1999 Marine Cargo Forecast. June 2003. The Port of Seattle’s container volume is projected to increase from approximately 1.3 million TEUs in 2002 to about 2.2 million TEUs by the year 2015. These growth forecasts are used for all future conditions. Table 3 summarizes the container forecasts by terminal. The forecasts assume that T-25 and T-30 are not used for container operations in the future. The Port of Seattle’s 2004 Business Plan sets an 8%-per-year growth goal for container traffic. If this is realized, then the container forecasts used for this analysis would accelerate and could occur by the year 2011, instead of 2015.

- 12 - October 27, 2003


Table 3. Year 2015 Container Volume Forecasts - TEUs

No Change in Steamship Line Locations

Type of Container Move T- 5 T-18 T-46 T-115 Total

Full In (Import) 446,600 278,200 213,700 0 938,500 Empty In (Import) 13,100 184,900 39,400 16,600 254,000 Full Out (Export) 156,600 385,500 103,300 16,600 662,000 Empty Out (Export) 130,900 132,200 122,200 0 385,300 Total 747,200 980,800 478,600 33,200 2,239,800

Development Scenarios A or B (Consolidated Activity at T-5 and T-18) Type of Container Move T- 5 T-18 T-46 T-115 Total

Full In (Import) 660,300 278,200 0 0 938,500 Empty In (Import) 52,500 184,900 0 16,600 254,000 Full Out (Export) 259,900 385,500 0 16,600 662,000 Empty Out (Export) 253,100 132,200 0 0 385,300 Total 1,225,800 980,800 0 33,200 2,239,800 Source: Heffron Transportation based on growth rates in the 1999 Marine Cargo Forecast. June 2003.

2.3. Intermodal Volumes

Existing Intermodal Volumes

“Intermodal” traffic for a container terminal is defined as the containers that are shipped by rail. Three terminals at the port—T-5, T-18, and T-46—have large portions of their traffic that are inter-modal. Both T-5 and T-18 have on-dock intermodal rail facilities, although only the facility at T-5 is currently being used. The majority of the intermodal containers are currently drayed (moved by truck) to off-dock intermodal rail yards. There are two major intermodal rail yards near the Port of Seattle: the Seattle International Gateway (SIG) Yard owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad and the Argo Yard owned by the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad. Intermodal volumes at the three terminals are tracked as average “boxes” per week. A box is the in-dustry term for a single container, regardless of its size. The total number of boxes per week at each terminal is derived using the TEU/Box ratio described earlier in this report. In 2002, the average number of TEUs per box was 1.76. Following historic trends, it is expected that the TEU/Box ratio would increase to about 1.80 by the year 2015. Average weekly intermodal volumes were obtained from each terminal operator. For T-5, the inter-modal volumes include those loaded at the on-dock intermodal yard and those drayed to off-dock intermodal yards. The year 2002 intermodal volumes are summarized in Table 4 for the three main terminals. This shows that currently, about 50% of all import containers at the three major terminals are intermodal, while 40% of the export containers are intermodal. It should be noted that these in-termodal percentages include international as well as domestic cargo through the port. Past reports have generally referred to the intermodal percentage of only the international cargo, which has ranged between 60% and 75%.

- 13 - October 27, 2003


Table 4. Year 2002 Intermodal Volumes – Boxes per Week

T- 5

T-18

T-46

Total for Three Terminals

Import - Weekly Volumes

Import Boxes at Terminal a 2,667 2,675 1,503 6,845

Intermodal Boxes b 1,600 950 905 3,455

Drayed Off-Dock 798 950 905 2,653

On-Dock 802 0 0 802

% Intermodal 60% 36% 60% 50% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 50% 0% 0% 23% Export – Weekly Volumes

Export Boxes at Terminal a 1,778 3,393 1,494 6,665

Intermodal Boxes b 583 1,244 830 2,657

Drayed Off-Dock 164 1,244 830 2,238

On-Dock 419 0 0 419

% Intermodal 33% 37% 56% 40% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 72% 0% 0% 16% Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003. a Import and export boxes determined by dividing annual volume by 52 weeks, and dividing by ratio of 1.76 TEUs/Box. b Intermodal boxes per week provided by terminal operators.

Future Intermodal Volumes

Intermodal volumes at the Port of Seattle are expected to grow at a higher rate than the total volumes. This is because of the limited local market area for import and export cargo, which limits the volume of locally-destined or locally-generated cargo. A higher percentage of the growth would have to be shipped to other areas of the United States; shipments that are generally made by rail. The volume of intermodal rail traffic forecast to be shipped through the Port of Seattle was derived from information in the Port of Seattle’s forecast and other information obtained from Port staff. Cur-rently, intermodal shipments through the Port of Seattle represent about 50% of all import containers and 40% of all export containers. By the year 2015, the percentage of intermodal containers is expected to increase to about 75% of imports from international origins, while exports would remain at about 40%. Terminal 18, which was assumed to continue accommodating domestic cargo, would have a lower import intermodal percentage compared to Terminals 5 and 46. Using these assumptions, the volume of intermodal traffic is expected to grow at about 5.7% annually. This is reasonable since intermodal traffic is expected to grow at a higher rate than overall container traffic. The volume of intermodal traffic is expected to be the same for all three development scenarios. The difference among the three future scenarios is the use of on-dock intermodal facilities and the location of carriers. Table 5 summarizes the intermodal rail forecasts for the year 2015. These values are pre-sented in “boxes.”

- 14 - October 27, 2003


Table 5. Year 2015 Intermodal Volumes – Boxes per Week

Year 2015 No Action/No Change in Steamship Line Locations Teminal Measure

T- 5

T-18

T-46


Import - Weekly Volumes Import Boxes at Terminal a 4,910 4,950 2,700 12,560 Intermodal Boxes 3,680 2,480 2,030 8,190 Drayed Off-Dock 1,290 1,980 2,030 5,300 On-Dock 2,390 500 0 2,890 % Intermodal 75% 50% 75% 65% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 65% 20% 0% 35% Export – Weekly Volumes Export Boxes at Terminal a 3,070 5,530 2,410 11,010 Intermodal Boxes 1,230 2,210 1,450 4,890 Drayed Off-Dock 490 1,880 1,450 3,820 On-Dock 740 330 0 1,070 % Intermodal 40% 40% 60% 44% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 60% 15% 0% 22%

Year 2015 – Development Scenario A (Consolidated Activity at T-5 and T-18 with minimal on-dock intermodal) Teminal Measure

T- 5

T-18

T-46


Import - Weekly Volumes Import Boxes at Terminal a 7,610 4,950 0 12,560 Intermodal Boxes 5,710 2,480 0 8,190 Drayed Off-Dock 3,320 1,980 0 5,300 On-Dock 2,390 500 0 2,890 % Intermodal 75% 50% 0% 65% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 42% 20% 0% 35% Export – Weekly Volumes Export Boxes at Terminal a 5,480 5,530 0 11,010 Intermodal Boxes 2,680 2,210 0 4,890 Drayed Off-Dock 1,940 1,880 0 3,820 On-Dock 740 330 0 1,070 % Intermodal 49% 40% 0% 44% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 28% 15% 0% 22%

- 15 - October 27, 2003


Table 5 (continued). Year 2015 Intermodal Volumes – Boxes per Week

Year 2015 – Development Scenario B (consolidated activity at T-5 and T-18 with maximum on-dock intermodal) Teminal Measure

T- 5

T-18

T-46


Import - Weekly Volumes Import Boxes at Terminal a 7,610 4,950 0 12,560 Intermodal Boxes 5,710 2,480 0 8,190 Drayed Off-Dock 860 1,240 0 2,100 On-Dock 4,850 1,240 0 6,090 % Intermodal 75% 50% 0% 65% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 85% 50% 0% 74% Export – Weekly Volumes Export Boxes at Terminal a 5,480 5,530 0 11,010 Intermodal Boxes 2,680 2,210 0 4,890 Drayed Off-Dock 1,070 1,770 0 2,840 On-Dock 1,610 440 0 2,050 % Intermodal 49% 40% 0% 44% % of Intermodal moved on-dock 60% 20% 0% 42% Source: Port of Seattle, June 2003. a Import and export boxes determined by dividing annual volume by 52 weeks, and dividing by ratio of 1.80 TEUs/Box.

2.4. Truck Volumes

Daily Truck Trips

Containers that do not arrive or depart from the terminal on rail would be moved by truck. Truck vol-umes include two primary components: containers that are trucked to and from businesses in the Pacific Northwest (regional truck movements), and containers that are trucked to and from the two near-dock intermodal yards (SIG and Argo). The number of containers (boxes) moved by regional truck is the difference between the total containers moved through the terminal and those moved by intermodal rail (see previous table). The number of containers trucked to the SIG or Argo intermodal yards is the total number of intermodal containers minus those moved through the on-dock rail facili-ties at Terminals 5 and 18. The containers moved by truck were converted to truck trips using several factors. First, each loaded truck generally carries only one container. Second, each container (full or empty) moved through the truck gate generates 2.2 truck trips. This factor includes trips made by loaded chassis, empty chassis, and truck tractors. It also includes gate moves that require no transaction or the repositioning of con-tainers (e.g., an empty container at a terminal being sent out for a customer to load with cargo). This ratio is consistent with information in the Container Terminal Access Study (The Transpo Group, April 1993) as well as information compiled from T-18 as part of the Terminal 18 Improvement Project Draft EIS (Port of Seattle, March 1997). Average daily truck trips were derived by dividing the weekly boxes by five days, since most gates for regional traffic are only open on weekdays. Even though some terminals currently dray containers on Saturdays, a five-day work week reflects a worst-case assumption for truck traffic. The average weekday traffic volumes are summarized in Table 6.

- 16 - October 27, 2003


Table 6. Average Weekday Truck Volumes (One-Way Trips)

Year 2015 No Action/No Change in Steamship Line Locations

Truck Movement Type T-5 T-18 T-46 T-115 Total

To/from Off-Dock Rail Yards 780 1,700 1,530 0 4,010 To/from Region 1,350 2,550 720 280 4,900 Total 2,130 4,250 2,250 280 8,910

Year 2015 – Development Scenario A (Consolidated Activity at T-5 and T-18 with minimal on-dock intermodal) Truck Movement Type T-5 T-18 T-46 T-115 Total

To/from Off-Dock Rail Yards 2,310 1,700 0 0 4,010 To/from Region 2,070 2,550 0 280 4,900 Total 4,380 4,250 0 280 8,910

Year 2015 – Development Scenario B (consolidated activity at T-5 and T-18 with maximum on-dock intermodal) Truck Movement Type T-5 T-18 T-46 T-115 Total

To/from Off-Dock Rail Yards 850 1,320 0 0 2,170 To/from Region 2,070 2,550 0 280 4,900 Total 2,920 3,870 0 280 7,070 Source: Heffron Transportation, June 2003. Regional truck traffic is expected to increase from about 3,500 truck trips per day in the year 2002 to 4,900 truck trips per day in the year 2015. This represents about a 2.6% compound annual growth rate, which is consistent with regional traffic and economic growth patterns. The volume of trucks being drayed between the container terminals and the off-dock rail yards would vary depending on the development scenario.

Peak Hour Truck Trips

Truck movements vary substantially by time of day. Figure 10 shows the percent of the daily truck transactions at the existing Terminal 5 inbound gate. These data were collected as part of the Truck Gate Delay Benchmarking Study (Heffron Transportation, March 2000), for which three days of truck activity were video recorded at each port gate. This graph shows that truck volume entering the ter-minal steadily increases until about noon, and then decreases until the terminal closes at 5:00 P.M. Peak volume occurs between 11:00 A.M. and noon. It should be noted that Terminal 5 is the only marine terminal that remains open during the noon hour by splitting its lunch shift. This is possible because Terminal 5 is a wheeled operation where truck drivers can secure their own loads within the terminal. It is expected that as volume through the port increases, noontime gate operations will likely be required to accommodate the loads. Therefore, this hourly volume profile is used to estimate future peak hour traffic volumes. Truck volume during the peak hour of the terminal is assumed to comprise 17% of the daily volume, while truck volume during the adjacent street system’s commuter PM peak hour (starting at about 3:30 P.M.) comprises about 5% of the daily volume.

- 17 - October 27, 2003


Figure 10. Terminal Truck Volume by Time of Day

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM

Per

cent

Tru

cks

by H

our

Source: Terminal 5 Daily Gate Report for Thursday, January 27, 2000.

- 18 - October 27, 2003


2.5. Summary of Container Forecasts

Figures 11 through 13 summarize the key volume attributes for all of the future development scenar-ios. Figure 11 shows that the total container throughput (in TEUs) at the port would be the same for each scenario. Figure 12 shows the intermodal volumes. Again, the No-Change-in-Carrier-Location scenario would have the same total intermodal volumes as Scenarios A and B, but the split between on-dock and off-dock moves would change. Finally, shows the total truck volumes. It is assumed that the regional truck moves would be constant for all of the scenarios since the regional market would be the same; however, the number of truck trips to the off-dock rail yards would vary by development scenario.

Figure 13

Figure 11. Year 2015 Container Throughput Summary – TEUs per Year

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Existing Year 2015 - No Change in Carrier Locations

Year 2015 - Scenario A Year 2015 - Scenario B

Ann

ual T

EU

s

- 19 - October 27, 2003


Figure 12. Year 2015 Intermodal Volume Summary – Boxes per Week

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000



Box

es p

er W

eek

Total Off-Dock Intermodal Boxes/Week

Total On-Dock Intermodal Boxes/Week

Figure 13. Year 2015 Truck Trips Summary – Trips per Day

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000



Truc

k Tr

ips

per D

ay (O

ne-W

ay T

rips)

Truck Trips to Off-Dock Rail Yards (Trips/Day)

Truck Trips to Region (Trips/Day)

- 20 - October 27, 2003


3. TRUCK TRAVEL ROUTES This section presents the distribution pattern for truck trips generated by the Port of Seattle’s con-tainer terminals. It also determines the number of daily truck trips that would use key roadways in the port vicinity (trip assignment). The truck assignments are used to determine the traffic operational impacts and improvement needs in the port area presented later in this report.

3.1. Trip Distribution Pattern for Port Trucks

The origins and destinations of terminal truck trips were derived from truck driver surveys performed at four terminals and the Port’s container forecast. Truck drivers were interviewed at four of the Port’s six terminals in October 1997 as part of the Access Duwamish Study. Truck drivers waiting in queue at Terminals 18, 25, 37, and 46 were asked the origin of their current trip, whether they would be picking up another container at this terminal, where they were destined next, and what travel route they used. Approximately 150 truck drivers were surveyed at the four terminals. The truck-driver origin-and-destination data were combined with the Port forecasts regarding local dray and regional truck trips. In this way, survey bias that may account for more local dray trips during the survey period is reduced. By year 2015, there are likely to be only four container terminals operating in Seattle: T-5, T-18, T-46 and T-115. Trips generated by T-5 and T-30 are assumed to have similar origins and destinations as occurred at T-37 and 46. Trips generated by T-115 are assumed to arrive and depart to and from the south. Table 7 summarizes the future distribution pattern for terminal truck trips.

- 21 - October 27, 2003


Table 7. Year 2015 Distribution Patterns for Port Truck Trips

Terminal Origin/Destination T-5 T-18 T-46 T-115

Near-dock Rail Yard Dray Trips SIG Yard 30% 70% 80% 0%

Argo Yard 70% 30% 20% 0%

Total Dray Trips 100% 100% 100% 0%

Local and Regional Trips Duwamish Industrial Area 27% 46% 0% 6%

Other Seattle 0% 8% 0% 0%

Green River Valley (Kent, Auburn, etc.) 23% 17% 23% 5%

Eastside (Bellevue, Issaquah, etc.) 6% 0% 9% 5%

Points South (Tacoma, Olympia, etc.) 14% 21% 23% 56%

Points North (Everett, Canada, etc.) 10% 4% 13% 11%

Eastern Washington 20% 4% 32% 17%

Total Local and Regional Trips 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Heffron Transportation based on information collected from truck driver surveys at four terminals, plus the Port of Seattle’s

Container forecast. These were performed for the Access Duwamish Truck Mobility Survey, October 1997.

3.2. Truck Origins and Destinations

The truck trip distribution pattern was applied to the daily truck volumes from each terminal for each development condition. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 8 and are shown graphi-cally on Figures 14 through 16.

- 22 - October 27, 2003


Table 8. Average Daily Truck Trips & Origin/Destination Estimates

Intermodal Dray Trips Regional Truck Trips Local Total % SIG Argo Subtotal North South East Subtotal Trips Trips Origin

Existing Conditions (2002) Terminal 5 110 270 380 120 170 230 520 480 1,380 23%

Terminal 18 620 260 880 90 430 90 610 1,090 2,580 43%

Terminal 25 0 0 0 60 280 80 420 80 500 8%

Terminal 30 30 80 110 20 20 30 70 60 240 4%

Terminal 46 550 140 690 75 125 180 380 180 1,250 21%

Terminal 115 0 0 0 5 5 10 20 40 60 1%

Total 1,310 750 2,060 370 1,030 620 2,020 1,930 6,010 % Destination 22% 12% 34% 6% 18% 10% 34% 32% 100%

Year 2015 – No Change in Carrier Locations Terminal 5 490 290 780 130 190 270 590 760 2,130 24%

Terminal 18 1,190 510 1,700 110 530 110 750 1,800 4,250 48%

Terminal 46 1,220 310 1,530 100 160 230 490 230 2,250 25%

Terminal 115 0 0 0 30 150 50 230 50 280 3%

Total 2,900 1,110 4,010 370 1,030 660 2,060 2,840 8,910 % Destination 33% 12% 45% 4% 12% 7% 23% 32% 100%

Year 2015 – Scenario A Conditions Terminal 5 1,460 850 2,310 230 330 500 1,080 990 4,380 49%

Terminal 18 1,190 510 1,700 110 530 110 750 1,800 4,250 48%

Terminal 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Terminal 115 0 0 0 30 150 50 230 50 280 3%

Total 2,650 1,360 4,010 370 1,030 660 2,060 2,840 8,910 % Destination 30% 15% 45% 4% 12% 7% 23% 32% 100%

Year 2015 – Scenario B Conditions Terminal 5 540 310 850 230 350 500 1,080 990 2,920 42%

Terminal 18 920 400 1,320 110 530 110 750 1,800 3,870 55%

Terminal 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Terminal 115 0 0 0 30 150 50 230 50 280 3%

Total 1,460 710 2,170 370 1,030 660 2,060 2,840 7,070 % Destination 21% 10% 31% 5% 15% 9% 29% 40% 100% Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2002.

- 23 - October 27, 2003


Figure 14. Truck Origin & Destination Pattern – Year 2015 with No Change in Carrier Locations

I-5North

4%

RegionalTruck 7% I-90 East

Distribution

Terminal 46 12%I-5

23% South

25% BNSF North & EastTerminal 18 Via Stevens Pass

48% MARINE 45% Near-DockTERMINALS Intermodal

24% 100% Terminals

Terminal 5 UP South & EastVia Columbia Gorge

3%On-Dock 32% Seattle

Intermodal Transfer 3%Terminal 115 16% of total boxes 17% Duwamish Industrial Area

Equiv. Trucks 1,670 LocalTruck 2% Eastside

Distribution

10%Green River Valley(Via W.Mar and/or I-5)

- 24 - October 27, 2003


Figure 15. Truck Origin & Destination Pattern – Year 2015 with Scenario A

I-5North

4%


Distribution

Terminal 46 12%I-5

23% South



49% 100% Terminals





Distribution


- 25 - October 27, 2003


Figure 16. Truck Origin & Destination Pattern – Year 2015 with Scenario B

I-5North

5%


Distribution

Terminal 46 15%I-5

29% South



42% 100% Terminals





Distribution


- 26 - October 27, 2003


3.3. Port Trucks on Local Streets

Port truck trips were assigned to the roadway network based on the trip distribution pattern and in-formation about routes collected during the truck driver surveys. Figures 17 through 19 show the trip assignments for all three future conditions. The number of daily truck trips on key corridors in the port vicinity are summarized for each development scenario (See Table 9). These were compared to the existing conditions to show how growth in container traffic or consolidation of activity at T-5 and T-18 would affect truck volumes on these streets. Table 10 summarizes the percentage of trucks and port trucks on vicinity streets.

Table 9. Daily Port Trucks on Local Streets

Year 2015

Location Existing

2002

No Change in Carrier Locations

Scenario A

Scenario B

SW Spokane Street (on Harbor Island) 3,690 5,960 7,890 6,040 S Hanford Street (Btwn E Marginal Way and BNSF Gate) 1,330 2,660 2,660 1,470 E Marginal Way (North of Spokane) 1,690 2,140 2,900 1,710 Spokane Street Viaduct (East of Harbor Island Ramps) 1,510 1,630 1,850 1,850 Entering Argo Yard from E Marginal Way 750 1,360 1,360 710 I-5 (South of Albro) 940 1,000 830 830 Duwamish Avenue SW (Btwn Spokane St and E Marginal Way) 400 690 840 510 SR-519 (Btwn First and Fourth) 490 580 200 200 E Marginal Way (North of Dawson) 590 570 410 410 First Avenue S Bridge 590 570 410 410 West Marginal Way 490 510 840 840 Fourth Ave S (North of Spokane) 220 480 480 460 I-5 (North of I-90) 450 470 480 470 S Spokane Street (East of Fourth Avenue) 330 410 380 380 First Avenue S (North of Spokane) 140 300 310 310 S Lander Street (Btwn First and Fourth) 70 150 160 160 Sixth Ave S (North of Lander) 20 30 30 30 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2003.

- 27 - October 27, 2003


Figure 17. Existing (2002) Port Truck Trips – Average Daily Trips

- 28 - October 27, 2003


Figure 18. Year 2015 Port Truck Trips – No Changes in Carrier Locations - Average Daily Trips

- 29 - October 27, 2003


Figure 19. Year 2015 Port Truck Trips – Development Scenario A - Average Daily Trips

- 30 - October 27, 2003


- 31 - October 27, 2003

Figure 20. Year 2015 Port Truck Trips – Development Scenario B - Average Daily Trips

3.4. Truck Percentage of Total Traffic Volume

Table 10 summarizes the truck percentages for various locations throughout the port vicinity. These percentages are derived by comparing the truck classification counts performed for the Access Duwamish Truck Mobility Report to recent traffic counts obtained from the City of Seattle. Port truck volumes were derived from the information presented earlier in this report. The truck percentages compare the future port trucks to the existing total of all trucks. This analysis does not assume any growth in the number of non-port trucks. However, it provides an estimate of how port trucks compare to background traffic volumes.

3.5. Key Corridors

Based on the trip assignments, there are several key corridors in the port vicinity that would accommodate the majority of all truck movements. These corridors are:

• SW Spokane Street between Terminal 5 and East Marginal Way;

• East Marginal Way between T-46 and the First Avenue S Bridge, particularly the section between Hanford Street (where the BNSF Gate is located) and the access to the Argo Yard;

• Spokane Street Viaduct east of the Harbor Island Ramps;

• Access to the BNSF SIG Yard;

• SR-519, assuming T-46 remains in container operations; and

• West Marginal Way

Table 10. Truck Volumes and Percent Trucks at Various Locations

1997 Volumes From Access Duwamish Study

Existing Port Trucks (2002)

Year 2015 Port Trucks With No Change in Carrier Local

Year 2015 Port Trucks With Scenario A

Year 2015 Port Trucks With Scenario B

All Trucks

All Traffic

% Trucks

Port Trucks

% All Trucks

% All Vehicles

Port Trucks

% All Trucks

% All Vehicles

Port Trucks

% All Trucks

% All Vehicles

Port Trucks

% All Trucks

% All Vehicles

East Marginal Way south of Spokane Street

2,460 8,830 28% 1,340 54% 15% 1,930 63% 20% 1,770 77% 19% 1,120 50% 13%

Surface Spokane Street west of 4th Avenue

2,090 a 17,400 12% 650 31% 4% 1,140 44% 6% 1,150 55% 6% 1,150 44% 6%

1st Avenue S north of Holgate Street

1,680 27,300 6% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%

6th Avenue S north of Holgate Street

1,670 6,850 24% 20 1% 0% 30 2% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%

Spokane Street Viaduct west of 4th Avenue b

1,630 53,500 3% 1,510 93% 3% 1,630 93% 3% 2,030 100% 4% 2,020 94% 4%

SR-519 at BNSF Mainline 1,560 23,500 7% 490 31% 2% 580 35% 2% 200 13% 1% 200 13% 1%Royal Brougham Way at SIG Yard Tracks

1,560 10,500 15% 490 31% 5% 580 35% 5% 200 13% 2% 200 13% 2%

4th Avenue S north of Holgate Street

1,220 24,200 5% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0%

Spokane Street at SIG Yard Tracks

1,030 6,450 16% 510 50% 8% 840 62% 12% 840 82% 12% 840 62% 12%

a. Estimated b. Truck and general traffic counts on the Spokane Street Viaduct are from 1993. Source: Daily truck volumes derived by Heffron Transportation using truck classification counts performed in fall 1997 by Traffic Data Gathering and truck counts performed by the City of

Seattle in 1993 for the Spokane Street Viaduct. Port truck trips derived by Heffron Transportation, August 2003.

- 32 - October 27, 2003


4. PROJECTS NOW IN PLANNING/DESIGN There are many projects that are or have already been proposed and designed in the Duwamish Industrial Area. The projects that most affect the port are described below.

SR-99/Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement

Following the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake, which damaged the Alaskan Way Viaduct, WSDOT and the City of Seattle embarked on planning for replacing this vulnerable structure. Five replacement options are being evaluated for this project: These are:

• Tunnel – Replaces viaduct and seawall with six-lane tunnel on central waterfront

• Aerial – Replaces viaduct with new, wider viaduct and rebuilds seawall

• Rebuild – Rebuilds existing viaduct and seawall

• Bypass Tunnel – Replaces viaduct and seawall with a four-lane tunnel on central waterfront and expands Alaskan Way to six-lanes

• Surface – Replaces viaduct with a six-to-eight lane Alaskan Way, and rebuilds seawall.

One major element that is included in all of the Alaskan Way Viaduct alternatives is an interchange at Royal Brougham Way and Atlantic Street. The configuration of this interchange would differ depending on whether SR-99 is at-grade, above grade, or ascending from a tunnel. All of the options would require either relocation of the SIG Yard tail track from the west side of Alaskan Way—where it is proposed to be located as part of the SR-519 project—to the east side of Alaskan Way or replacement of this tail track with other switching options at the south end of the SIG Yard. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project is underway, and the Draft EIS (DEIS) is schedule for publication in March 2004. WSDOT is not planning on selecting a preferred alternative until after the DEIS is complete. Various elements of each option could be combined as part of that preferred alternative.

Spokane Street Viaduct Widening

This project would build an additional viaduct structure on the north side of the existing structure to allow all lanes to be widened to 12 feet each, provide for an additional westbound merging lane, and provide shoulders. The new structure would seismically strengthen the existing viaduct. The project would also relocate the existing westbound on- and off-ramps from 4th Avenue S to 1st Avenue S to reduce the weaving conflicts near I-5. Figure 21 shows the proposed configuration for the Spokane Street Viaduct.

- 33 - October 27, 2003


Figure 21. Spokane Street Viaduct Improvements

Source: http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/images/viaductwideninglarge.jpg

Surface Spokane Street, under the Viaduct, would also be improved by this project. On the northern side of S Spokane Street at ground level, the existing sidewalks will be rehabilitated and elongated into a bicycle and pedestrian pathway along the entire length of the project. S Spokane Street also will be repaved with asphalt over the entire existing roadway and gravel median under the existing viaduct. The 4th Avenue S (westbound) on-ramp to the viaduct, that is currently closed, will also be removed under this contract. This project has been fully designed, but construction is on hold while the City attempts to secure a funding package. As of August 2003, the City was short about $30 million to fund the total $80 mil-lion project. The shortfall includes $25 million listed on the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) and $5 million on the FAST Partner list.

- 34 - October 27, 2003


SR-519 Intermodal Access Project

Royal Brougham Way and Alaskan Way are part of a designated state highway known as SR-519. WSDOT, together with its partners the City of Seattle, the Port of Seattle, and the BNSF Railroad, have planned major improvements for SR-519. These improvements were designed to be constructed in three parts:

• Phase 1: Atlantic Street. This phase, which is scheduled to be completed in Octo-ber 2003, is building a new grade-separated roadway in the Atlantic Street right-of-way between 4th Avenue S and 1st Avenue S. It is elevated above the BNSF mainline railroad tracks and will provide access to I-5 and eastbound I-90. When complete, S Atlantic Street will operate as a two-way street, and will be part of the SR-519 corridor.

• Phase 1: Surface Street Improvements on Alaskan Way. The City of Seattle is the lead agency for a major roadway improvement on Alaskan Way that would improve the connection between the new Atlantic Street corridor and the Washington State Ferries terminal. This project proposes to relocated the SIG Yard tail track from the east side to the west side of Alaskan Way so that the main flow of traffic to Atlantic Street and Royal Brougham Way does not cross the tracks. Traffic destined to and from the south on East Marginal Way would cross the relocated tracks. In addition, this project would create a ferry-queue holding area under the Alaskan Way Viaduct between Royal Brougham Way and King Street. Finally, this project includes a sig-nalized intersection at Alaskan Way/Atlantic Street/T-46 Gate at the south end of this terminal. The signal will also serve a new dedicated truck route between T-46 and North SIG on Colorado Avenue.

• Phase II: Royal Brougham Way. The original concept and memorandum of agreement (MOA) amongst the stakeholders included a second phase of SR-519 that would build another elevated structure over the BNSF mainline tracks on Royal Brougham Way, which would connect from I-5 and I-90. When this phase is complete, it was intended that Royal Brougham Way would operate as a one-way street in the westbound direc-tion, and Atlantic Street would operate as a one-way street in the eastbound direction. The full concept as it was originally conceived is shown on Figure 22.

In March 2003, the City of Seattle proposed an alternative configuration to the previously proposed Phase 2 concept. This alternative would eliminate the direct connection between westbound I-90 and Royal Brougham Way. It would also retain two-way operation on both Atlantic Street and Royal Brougham Way. At that time, the stakeholders met to discuss components of a new MOA. As of September 2003, no revised agreement has been drafted or adopted.

- 35 - October 27, 2003


Figure 22. SR-519 Improvements – Original Concept

Source: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/may01/, September 2004.

- 36 - October 27, 2003

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/news/may01/


Figure 23. SR-519 Alaskan Way Surface Street Improvements

Source: Seattle Department of Transportation, September 2003.

- 37 - October 27, 2003


East Marginal Way Grade-Separation Project

The Port of Seattle has proposed construction of a new structure south of S Spokane Street to separate through vehicular traffic on East Marginal Way from rail traffic on the BNSF and UP lead tracks that serve West Seattle and Harbor Island. Several design alternatives are currently being evaluated for this project. The alternatives have evolved from initial concepts developed during the Access Duwamish project, through a preliminary design project, and then a value engineering review. The current Preferred Alternative for the East Marginal Way Grade-Separation project would create an elevated roadway along the South Roadway of Spokane Street, which all traffic coming from Harbor Island would use. At the apex of the elevated structure, vehicles could proceed straight to Spokane Street and on to the existing Spokane Street/East Marginal Way intersection, or could turn right and use the new railroad overpass to reach southbound SR-99 and other local destinations such as the Argo Yard. The elevated roadway above Spokane Street would also have one westbound lane that would provide access to the railroad overpass from the existing Spokane Street/East Marginal Way intersection. This option is depicted in Figure 24.

Figure 24. East Marginal Way Grade-Separation Project - Preferred Option

Source: David Evans & Associates, September 2003.

- 38 - October 27, 2003


Duwamish ITS Project

The Duwamish Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project includes technologies to improve traf-fic flow and motorist information. Elements include signal interconnection, variable message signs, closed-circuit television to provide real-time traffic information to the City’s traffic management center and public, advance notification of bridge openings and train crossings, and interconnection of signals with rail and bridge gates. Various elements of the Duwamish ITS plan have already been implemented, including coordination of traffic signals along 1st Avenue S, 4th Avenue S, East Marginal Way, and Airport Way. Phase II of this program, which has been designed, includes the following (these are shown on Figure 25):

Rail crossing interconnect: • Royal Brougham Way – connect signals at 1st and 4th Avenues with BNSF Mainline gates • Holgate Street – connect signals at 1st and 4th Avenues with BNSF Mainline gates • Lander Street – connect signals at 1st and 4th Avenues with BNSF Mainline gates • Spokane Surface Street – connect signal at 1st Avenue with BNSF Mainline gates

Bridge opening interconnect: • 1st Avenue S Bridge – connect to signal at S Michigan Street/East Marginal Way • Spokane Street Swing Bridge – connect to variable message signs listed below Cameras at:

• S Holgate Street/1st Avenue S • S Lander Street/3rd Avenue S • Spokane Street/6th Avenue S • West Seattle Bridge (High Level) above Harbor Island • West Seattle Bridge (High Level) at Delridge Avenue • East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S • Michigan Street/4th Avenue S • East Marginal Way/S Hudson Street • West Marginal Way/Chelan Avenue

Signs that state “When Flashing Use High Level Bridge”:

• Southbound SR-99 at T-30 (replace existing flashing beacon) • Southbound 1st Avenue S north of Spokane Street • Northbound 1st Avenue S south of Spokane Street • Eastbound Spokane Street east of Harbor Avenue

Variable / Changeable Message Signs that would direct use of lower or upper level bridges over the Duwamish River depending on construction conditions:

• Southbound 1st Avenue S north of S Horton Street • Westbound Spokane Street east of 1st Avenue S

Signal controller upgrades • East Marginal Way at Corson Street, Carleton Street, Ellis Street, and 16th Avenue S • 4th Avenue S/I-90 • S Cloverdale Street/14th Avenue S

- 39 - October 27, 2003


- 40 - October 27, 2003

Figure 25. Duwamish ITS Project - Phase 2


Lander Street Grade-Separation Project

The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) recently completed a Type, Size & Location (TS&L) Study of a potential railroad grade-separation at or in the vicinity of Lander Street. This study evaluated locations for a grade-separation at S Lander Street, S Stacy Street, S Forest Street and S Hanford Street. The Preferred Alternative would grade-separate S Lander Street from the railroad tracks by constructing a new elevated structure in that corridor. The structure would meet existing grade east of 1st Avenue S and at approximately 3rd Avenue S. The next phase of this project would proceed to final design. Construction is scheduled to occur in approximately 2008; however, no funding has yet been secured for this project.

SR-509 Extension

Currently, SR-509 is a six-lane freeway extending from the 1st Avenue South Bridge in south Seattle to South 188th Street in the city of SeaTac. WSDOT is proposing to extend the SR-509 freeway from S 188th Street in SeaTac to Interstate 5 near S 211th Street. The extension will have six lanes, with two general-use and one HOV lane in each direction. The project will also construct a four-lane access road that links directly to Sea-Tac International Airport from the south. Additional lanes will be constructed on I-5 from South 211th Street in SeaTac to South 320th Street in Federal Way. Improvements will be made to the existing SR-516 (Kent-Des Moines Rd.) interchange, including additional lanes on I-5 south, and a direct connection to the City of Kent's 228th Corridor Extension project. Figure 26 shows the proposed alignment. The SR-509 project would benefit commuters by reducing congestion on I-5 between Federal Way and Seattle, help businesses by creating a direct freight route between Green River Valley and the industrial area of Seattle, and give travelers the convenience of a south route to Sea-Tac Airport in lieu of S 188th Street or SR-99.

SR-509 is included in the CTAS Update because it could become the primary freeway link between the Port of Seattle and points south such as the Green River Valley. It could also increase traffic on East Marginal Way between Spokane Street and the 1st Avenue S Bridge by creating an alternate route into downtown Seattle for commuters.

- 41 - October 27, 2003


Figure 26. SR-509 Extension – Preferred Alternative

Source: www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I5DesMoinesWaySouth188St/c2.html. Obtained from website August 12, 2003.

- 42 - October 27, 2003

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I5DesMoinesWaySouth188St/c2.html


5. IMPROVEMENT NEEDS Potential improvement needs were evaluated for each major terminal. The need for these improve-ments can vary depending on the development scenario selected. For example, some improvements at the north end of the Duwamish Industrial Area (e.g., SR-519) may not be needed to serve freight traf-fic if T-46 is no longer used for container operations. Likewise, if activity is consolidated at T-5 and T-18, it would increase the need for improvements on key corridors connecting to T-5. For this analysis, the key corridors serving each terminal are identified. Potential congestion points and improvement measures along these corridors were then developed using many traffic analysis tools and measures, including:

• Intersection level of service • Vehicular delay due to train crossings or bridge openings • Pavement condition

5.1. Traffic Operations

Intersections are rated using “level of service” (LOS), which is a qualitative measure used to charac-terize traffic operating conditions. Six letter designations, “A” through “F,” are used to define level of service. LOS A is the best and represents good traffic operations with little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. All level-of-service analysis presented in this report were performed using the methodology in the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (2000). Intersection level of service was determined using the Synchro software. Level of service analysis was performed for the Year 2015 without any change in carrier locations assuming only the improvements previously described that are already under construction (SR-519 Phase 1). Under these conditions, most intersections in the vicinity of the Port of Seattle’s container terminals would operate at acceptable levels of service, even during the PM peak hour, which is when congestion is most noticeable. LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the City of Seattle.

shows the year 2015 level of service at key intersections. Three intersections in the area would operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or LOS F):

Figure 27

• East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S • S Atlantic Street/1st Avenue S • SW Spokane Street/West Marginal Way/Chelan Avenue

Consolidating container operations at T-5 and T-18 would not affect level of service at either of the two poorly-operating intersections on 1st Avenue S. This is because the congestion on 1st Avenue S is caused by commuter traffic, and port trucks are a very small proportion of the overall traffic. However, increases in truck volume associated with consolidating activity at T-5 and T-18 could exacerbate conditions at the SW Spokane Street/West Marginal Way/Chelan Street intersection. Fortunately, a simple and inexpensive change could be made at this latter intersection to improve operations to LOS C or better during the peak hour. This improvement is described later.

- 43 - October 27, 2003


- 44 - October 27, 2003

Figure 27. Intersection Level of Service Summary - Year 2015 with No Change in Carrier Locations


Congestion can exist at major interchanges. This includes the interchanges at I-5/Spokane Street Viaduct and at SR-99/Spokane Street Viaduct. Detailed analysis of these interchanges is beyond the scope of this study; however, queuing that exists at these interchanges during the peak hours suggests that they operate at or above capacity, which relates to LOS E or LOS F conditions. Other locations where delays could exist are the at-grade railroad crossings and operable bridges. Delays at key grade crossings and the Spokane Street Swing Bridge are described in later sections. The delay at these locations can be lengthy and unpredictable, which affects the reliability of truck deliver-ies. One advantage of the grid system in Seattle is that there are redundant routes serving all if its termi-nals. With advance notification of a blockage or incident, truckers could use an alternate route. Potential solutions for all of the key congestion points are described later in Chapter 6, along with more in-depth analysis of key locations.

5.2. Pavement Conditions

Data were obtained from SDOT to evaluate the condition of pavement on selected streets within the study area. SDOT’s goal is to evaluate pavement conditions for asphalt arterials on a two-year cycle, and concrete arterials on a five-year cycle, although past pavement assessments have not been done this frequently. The last major assessment of asphalt pavements occurred in year 2000 and the major assess-ment of concrete arterials was in 1998. However, not all street segments in the City were evaluated, including a number of street segments in the study area. Currently, a major update of pavement ratings is underway, with final results expected in October 2003. The assessment program is designed to provide information about current-year maintenance requirements and identify future needs. The condition of pavement on selected streets in the study area is summarized in Table 11. It should be noted that the City typically only rates arterial streets.

Table 11. Pavement Condition of Selected Streets

Street

Begin Location

End Location

Pavement Type a

Most Recent Data

for Segments

Estimated 2003 PCR b

Estimated 2003

Rating

E Marginal Way S Michigan Street Alaskan Way S AC/PCC 1990, 2000 54 Fair

S Hanford St E Marginal Way 1st Avenue S AC/PCC 2000 46 Fair

S Spokane St. E Marginal Way 6th Avenue S AC/PCC 1992, 1994, 1999 50 Fair

SW Spokane St Harbor Ave SW E Marginal Way AC/PCC 1994, 2000 58 Good

W Marginal Way c SW Spokane Stt SR-509 AC/PCC 1987, 1992, 2000 37 Poor

1st Avenue S Royal Brough Wy E Marginal Way AC/PCC 1999, 2000, 2002 43 Fair Source: SDOT. Pavement Management System Database a AC = Asphalt Cement Pavement, PCC = Portland Cement Concrete b PCR = Pavement Condition Rating, which is based on American Public Works Association (APWA) PAVER methodologies. c Based upon available data. No data are available for much of W Marginal Way. Of the six streets included in the City of Seattle’s pavement analysis, only SW Spokane Street (west of E Marginal Way) is estimated to be in “good” condition according to SDOT’s rating scale. However, visual inspection of this street, particularly the bridge section above the East Duwamish Waterway,

- 45 - October 27, 2003


found many ruts and potholes on this section. The pavement on this street should be re-evaluated. Most of the other roadways in the study area are within the category of “fair” condition. West Marginal Way is estimated to be in “poor” condition. Truckers in the area have also stated that there are pavement issues at almost all at-grade rail crossings in the area. There are several streets in the area with poor pavement conditions that are not likely on the City’s list since they are non-arterial streets. These include:

• Diagonal Street between East Marginal Way and Colorado Avenue • Colorado Avenue south of S Atlantic Street

Each year SDOT revises the list of City streets that are candidates for resurfacing. This list is modified based upon complaints, neighborhood requests, the maintenance crew chief’s recommendations, and field checks. The resulting street list is ranked by the pavement condition rating (PCR) and adjusted to balance improvements geographically and by arterial class. SDOT then makes recommendations to elected officials, and following approval presents the final project list to the maintenance section for implementation. Streets that are not designated as arterials, have low volumes, or have a low number of accidents are not likely to be included on the list of streets that are candidates for resurfacing. Since many streets within industrial areas would have the above characteristics, they have a lower likelihood of moving successfully through SDOT’s prioritization process than main arterials.

5.3. Key Corridors and Improvement Needs for Terminal 5 Traffic

Truck and rail volumes at T-5 would vary substantially depending on the development scenario. If activity were consolidated at T-5 and T-18, and containers continued to be drayed to the near-dock rail yards (Scenario A), truck volumes would be much higher than currently exist. Likewise, if the on-dock intermodal yards are used for most of the rail connections (Scenario B), train volumes would increase substantially. Table 12 lists the primary travel routes serving T-5 and the daily truck volumes generated by the terminal expected to use each route for each development condition.

Table 12. Daily Truck Volumes Generated by Terminal 5

Location

Existing (2002)

Year 2015 w/ No Change in Carrier

Locations

Year 2015 Scenario A

Year 2015 Scenario B

West Marginal Way 490 510 840 840

SW Spokane Street at Swing Bridge 890 1,620 3,550 2,080

SW Spokane Street west of East Marginal Way 290 690 2,070 880

S Spokane Street east of 1st Avenue S 65 260 260 260

Spokane Street Viaduct (to I-5/I-90) 460 475 870 870

East Marginal Way south of Spokane St (to Argo) 270 550 850 310

East Marginal Way north of Spokane St (to SIG) 110 230 1,460 540 Source: Heffron Transportation, August 2003. The truck forecasts for this terminal show the importance of West Marginal Way, surface Spokane Street, the Spokane Street Viaduct, and East Marginal Way between Hanford Street and Diagonal Street. Truck volumes lower than 100 trucks per day are expected on other streets and routes for all

- 46 - October 27, 2003


development alternatives. Surface Spokane Street across the Swing Bridge and East Marginal Way are particularly critical routes if activity is consolidated at T-5 and T-18, and containers continue to be drayed to the SIG and Argo rail yards. The following potential congestion points could affect these primary corridors for T-5 truck traffic:

• West Marginal Way/Spokane Street intersection • Spokane Street Swing Bridge • East Marginal Way railroad at-grade crossings south of Spokane Street • East Marginal Way (SR-99) weave between on-ramp near Nevada Street and Diagonal

Avenue (Argo Yard Access) • Spokane Street Viaduct/I-5 Interchange • Spokane Street Viaduct/SR-99 Interchange – eastbound-to-northbound ramp • SIG Yard Access


Truck and rail volumes at T-18 would vary depending on the use of the on-dock rail facility. The routes between T-18 and SIG and Argo would change depending on whether the majority of contain-ers are drayed to the off-dock yards, or if containers are loaded directly onto trains at T-18’s on-dock intermodal yard. Table 13 lists the primary travel routes serving T-18. It also includes the daily truck volumes generated by the terminal and the number expected to use each route for each development condition.


Location

Existing (2002)


Locations or Scenario A

Year 2015 Scenario B

SW Spokane Street between 11th Avenue and Viaduct ramps

2,580 4,250 3,870

SW Spokane Street west of East Marginal Way 870 1,070 1,070

S Spokane Street east of 1st Avenue S 1,160 2,190 1,860

Spokane Street Viaduct (to I-5/I-90) 400 810 810

East Marginal Way north of Spokane St (to SIG) 620 1,190 920

East Marginal Way south of Spokane St (to Argo) 530 830 720

East Marginal Way south of Diagonal Avenue 260 320 320 Source: Heffron Transportation, August 2003.

- 47 - October 27, 2003


The primary corridors for T-18 are similar to those for T-5 except that East Marginal Way south to the 1st Avenue S Bridge is the primary route south rather than West Marginal Way. Potential congestion points that could affect these primary corridors for T-18 truck traffic include:

• East Marginal Way railroad at-grade crossings south of Spokane Street • East Marginal Way (SR-99) weave between on-ramp near Nevada Street and Diagonal

Avenue (Argo Yard Access) • East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S intersection • Spokane Street Viaduct/I-5 Interchange • Spokane Street Viaduct/SR-99 Interchange – eastbound-to-northbound ramp • SIG Yard Access


Container truck volumes at T-46 would either be high or zero depending on whether its container operations remain at this terminal. Hanjin currently drays all of its intermodal containers to the SIG Yard, and uses either the North Gate or Main Gate at SIG depending on the internal operations of the rail yard on various days. Table 14 lists the primary travel routes serving T-46. It also includes the daily truck volumes generated by the terminal and the number expected to use each route for each development condition. For the purpose of this analysis, SIG volumes are not separated by gate loca-tion, since they could affect either gate on a daily basis.


Location

Existing (2002)


Locations

Year 2015 With Consolidated

Activity at T-5 and T-18

SR-519 to I-90/I-5 (Atlantic St or Royal Brougham Way) 430 460 0

SIG Gate 550 1,220 0

East Marginal Way north of Spokane St (to SIG) 820 1,690 0

East Marginal Way south of Spokane St 265 470 0

East Marginal Way south of Diagonal Avenue 265 470 0 Source: Heffron Transportation, August 2003. The primary corridors for T-46 are SR-519 and East Marginal Way. Potential congestion points along these routes include:

• 1st Avenue S/Atlantic Street intersection • 1st Avenue S/Royal Brougham Way intersection • East Marginal Way railroad at-grade crossings south of Spokane Street • East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S intersection • SIG Yard Access

- 48 - October 27, 2003


- 49 - October 27, 2003


Container truck volumes at T-115 would be the same for all year 2015 development scenarios. This terminal is expected to generate an average of 280 truck trips per day in the future. Almost all of this traffic would use roads south and east of the terminal that connect to SR-99, SR-509, and SR-599. Some trucks may cross the 1st Avenue S bridge to make local deliveries within the Duwamish area or to access I-5 via Michigan Street. Within this project’s study area, potential congestion points include the East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S intersection.

6. EVALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS This section evaluates potential improvements along the key corridors identified above. More detailed level of service or rail crossing analysis is provided for select locations.

6.1. West Marginal Way Corridor

West Marginal Way is currently a five-lane arterial (two lanes in each direction plus a center-left-turn lane) along much of its length. Traffic signals exist at Spokane Street (at the north end of the corridor), as well as Highland Park Avenue and 2nd Avenue (at the south end of the corridor). In between these two signals, traffic is relatively unimpeded.

West Marginal Way/Spokane Street Intersection

Traffic modeling of future conditions determined that congestion would occur at the West Marginal Way/Spokane Street/Delridge Way intersection in the future with or without the consolidation of activity at T-5. This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E under all conditions if no improvements are made. A simple change in the lane configuration (providing designated left-turn lanes on northwest-bound West Marginal Way and eastbound Chelan Avenue), and a change in the signal phasing (providing concurrent through movements on the same two approaches) would improve operations at this intersection to LOS B. These recommended changes are shown on Figure 28. In addition to the lane and signal changes, directional signage improvements are also recommended. Observations of this intersection determined that many motorists are confused and use the incorrect lanes at the intersection. This results in vehicles turning from the wrong lanes or delays while motor-ists merge with an adjacent lane of traffic. A full analysis of existing signage and potential improve-ments should be performed.


Figure 28. Potential Improvement at West Marginal Way/Spokane Street

Source: Heffron Transportation, August 2003.

Change to left-turn-only lane to Delridge Way and Spokane Street

Change to left-turn-only lane to Terminal 5 Access

Terminal 115 Access

The existing T-115 south gate is located on West Marginal Way just north of the Highland Park Way intersection. Left-turn egress to West Marginal Way is difficult, particularly if a queue extends north from the intersection. The Port should evaluate options for moving this access further north or locat-ing the access on the south side of the terminal to Highland Park Way. An unused two-way-left-turn-lane exists on Highland Park Way east of West Marginal Way that could serve terminal traffic.

West Marginal Way Bike Lane

In October 2002, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) constructed a 10-foot bike trail/path on the east side of West Marginal Way south of Spokane Street. The trail had been part of a 17-year effort by SDOT to extend a trail along West Marginal Way, many sections of which have existed for more than 10 years. To install this new section of trail, however, SDOT mistakenly removed the center two-way-left-turn-lane to accommodate the bike lane. They were supposed to

- 50 - October 27, 2003


have removed one southbound lane instead. In response to the intense opposition from local busi-nesses and the Seattle Manufacturing Industrial Council (MIC), SDOT removed the trail and returned the roadway geometry to its prior configuration. The MIC is opposed to any use of roadway capacity for this bike trail because West Marginal Way is a designated truck route. Several businesses along the route have offered to provide land east of the roadway for an off-road bike path, but no decision has yet been made related to the trail. Based on the analysis of the West Marginal Way/SW Spokane Street intersection, two lanes in each direction are essential on West Marginal Way. The additional lane not only provides needed capacity, but also increases the truck turning radii for trucks entering and exiting the roadway. For this reason, it is recommended that a trail only be constructed if it does not remove a lane from West Marginal Way.

6.2. Surface Spokane Street Corridor and Swing Bridge

Even with the increased truck volume associated with development Scenario A (consolidated activity at T-5 and T-18 with minimal on-dock intermodal), the intersection at Spokane Street and the T-5 access would continue to operate at a good level of service. Other signalized intersections between T-5 and East Marginal Way would also operate at good levels of service (LOS B or better).

Swing Bridge

Dray movements between T-5 and the off-dock rail yards, however, would need to cross the Spokane Street “Swing” Bridge connecting West Seattle to Harbor Island. When this bridge opens to marine traffic, it pivots or swings to the side—a movement that can take longer than a typical bascule-bridge opening. These openings are the biggest issue in this corridor because they are unpredictable, which makes the travel time for truck deliveries unreliable. Data from the Seattle Department of Transportation’s Bridge Tender were previously collected for the Terminal 18 Improvement Project DEIS. Data from September 1, 1994, through September 31, 1995 indicated that, on average, the bridge is opened between eight and nine times each day. The peak number of daily openings occurred in June. Specific data for that month indicate that the length of time elapsed during each bridge opening ranged from six (6) minutes to 27 minutes; however, one opening was reported to last 65 minutes. The average bridge opening lasts 13 minutes. Bridge opening data from June 1995 are summarized in Table 15.

- 51 - October 27, 2003


Table 15. Spokane Street Swing Bridge Openings – June 1995

Day of Openings Duration of Opening (minutes) # of Openings During Date Week per Day Average Minimum Peak Daytime a Peak Commute b 1-Jun-95 Thursday 21 12 8 19 10 5 2-Jun-95 Friday 11 14 10 22 4 1 3-Jun-95 Saturday 12 12 9 16 7 2 4-Jun-95 Sunday 5 13 10 16 3 1 5-Jun-95 Monday 12 12 8 21 5 4 6-Jun-95 Tuesday 4 12 10 15 1 0 7-Jun-95 Wednesday 10 13 10 18 4 2 8-Jun-95 Thursday 8 19 7 65 5 1 9-Jun-95 Friday 12 14 9 18 5 1 10-Jun-95 Saturday 7 16 10 21 4 2 11-Jun-95 Sunday 7 15 10 19 2 1 12-Jun-95 Monday 9 11 9 17 5 1 13-Jun-95 Tuesday 11 13 10 17 8 3 14-Jun-95 Wednesday 6 12 10 14 1 1 15-Jun-95 Thursday 7 12 10 14 2 1 16-Jun-95 Friday 9 15 12 24 4 2 17-Jun-95 Saturday 14 13 9 17 7 4 18-Jun-95 Sunday 5 13 10 15 3 2 19-Jun-95 Monday 6 14 9 19 2 2 20-Jun-95 Tuesday 4 14 11 19 2 1 21-Jun-95 Wednesday 7 15 11 27 4 3 22-Jun-95 Thursday 10 13 8 19 7 5 23-Jun-95 Friday 11 14 10 21 6 3 24-Jun-95 Saturday 6 12 9 13 3 3 25-Jun-95 Sunday 7 11 9 15 2 1 26-Jun-95 Monday 10 11 7 13 8 2 27-Jun-95 Tuesday 12 11 6 16 5 1 28-Jun-95 Wednesday 8 12 7 17 4 2 29-Jun-95 Thursday 12 13 10 17 6 3 30-Jun-95 Friday 15 12 9 15 3 0

Average 9.3 13.1 Min = 6 Max = 65 4.4 2.0 a Daytime = 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. b Peak Commute = 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. For most T-5 trucks destined to the off-dock intermodal yards, the Swing Bridge is unavoidable. Some truck drivers could opt to access the West Seattle Freeway via the Delridge Avenue ramps and exit to 1st Avenue S; however, this route is not a good alternative for all trips. First, the Delridge Avenue ramp is steep and trucks climb it slowly. Second, vehicles cannot turn right from the 1st Avenue S ramp to southbound 1st Avenue towards the Argo Yard; therefore, trucks would have to proceed east to 4th Avenue before they could turn to go south. Trucks would then need to double back across 1st Avenue S to access Argo. Alternate access to the SIG yard is somewhat easier given that trucks can turn left from the Spokane Street Viaduct off-ramp to northbound 1st Avenue. From

- 52 - October 27, 2003


there trucks can turn left on Hanford Street to access the SIG Yard. Even if these circuitous routes are an option, truck drivers would need to know that the Swing Bridge is going to be opened enough in advance of the event to change their travel route. The City of Seattle has proposed to interconnect the Spokane Street Swing Bridge with new flashing mes-sage signs at several locations (see example to right). These include:

1. Southbound SR-99 at T-30

2. Southbound 1st Avenue S north of Spokane Street

3. Northbound 1st Avenue S south of Spokane Street

4. Eastbound Spokane Street east of Harbor Avenue

One of these signs already exists for trucks that exit T-5 at surface to West Marginal Way; however, it cannot be seen by truckers using the ramp that connects to Spokane Street. Also, there are no signs on Harbor Island that alert truck drivers to a pending bridge opening. Additional signs that alert truckers exiting T-5 and T-18 that the Swing Bridge is open could be installed at:

5. T-5 Access Ramp approaching Spokane Street 6. Southbound Klickitat Avenue near Spokane Street (This sign should

be modified to state: “Swing Bridge Open When Flashing.”) Although the majority of the marine traffic that requires an opening of the Swing Bridge is commer-cial traffic, some are required for sailboats that are moored along the Duwamish River. This includes some sailboats moored at the Port-controlled T-102 Marina. One measure to reduce the potential for bridge openings is to restrict moorage for tall-masted vessels that may require a bridge opening.

Lower Spokane Street Improvements

The City of Seattle proposes to upgrade the pavement and U-turn facilities on surface Spokane Street between 6th Avenue S and East Marginal Way in conjunction with the Spokane Street Viaduct pro-ject. Lower Spokane Street east of East Marginal Way is used by container trucks to access local businesses in the Duwamish area. The section between 1st Avenue S and 4th Avenue S is most heavily used since trucks from T-5 and T-18 often enter and exit the Spokane Street Viaduct using the Harbor Island and 1st Avenue S ramps in order to avoid trains on the SIG south lead tracks. Pavement improvements and U-turn facilities would benefit truck movements in this corridor. Thus, the Port should support the City’s proposed project to make these surface improvements. In addition to the City’s programmed improvements for surface Spokane Street, a barrier that pre-vents U-turns in the center of SW Spokane Street on the bridge over the East Waterway should be considered. Many vehicles U-turn from westbound to eastbound in order to access the Spokane Street Viaduct and/or SR 99 North. These U-turns are hazardous at this location. The Port-provided U-turn facility on Harbor Island (Spokane Street to Klickitat Avenue to Manning Street) is a safer alterna-tive. A jersey barrier or C-curb on the centerline of the East Waterway Bridge would prohibit these undesirable U-turn movements.

- 53 - October 27, 2003


6.3. East Marginal Way Corridor

East Marginal Way Railroad Grade-Separation

Another location where container trucks could encounter long, unpredictable delays is on East Marginal Way south of Spokane Street where two railroad lead tracks cross this street at grade. Both the BNSF and UP Railroads have lead tracks that serve Harbor Island and West Seattle. All container trains des-tined to or from T-5 or T-18 use these lead tracks. In addition, local industries in West Seattle and Harbor Island also receive train shipments (e.g., rail barge, flour mill site). Finally, the City of Seattle and King County are evaluating the potential for a solid-waste transfer facility on Harbor Island where garbage from trucks would be transferred to trains. These trains would also cross East Marginal Way. Train activity on the BNSF and UP rail leads across East Marginal Way were compiled for the Access Duwamish project. These data were collected from members of the local BNSF Pacific Northwest en-gineering staff, as well as the Network Operations Analysis staff in Fort Worth, TX. The existing rail data reflected conditions prior to Terminal 18 being completed. However, since the on-dock rail yard on that site is not being used to its full capacity, these volumes are still representative of existing conditions. The Access Duwamish study projected train activity through the year 2005. This activity was assumed to include use of the on-dock rail yards at T-5 and T-18 in that year. By the year 2015 (the forecast year for this study), additional train movements are expected to serve increased volumes at the two container terminals plus additional garbage trains from the proposed solid-waste transfer facility. Estimates of train movements are summarized in Table 16. Blockage times for 15 different types of train movements were computed based on average train speeds and typical train lengths for each type of movement. The total blockage time was determined for each type of train movement. These were then grouped into four major categories. The total blockage time is summarized in Table 16. The total blockage time includes time in advance of the train when lights begin flashing (or, in the future, when a gate closes). Finally, the total delay incurred by roadway vehicles in queue at a railroad crossing was determined. This delay was calculated using a methodology applied for the Access Duwamish project. It considers the number of vehicles that could be stopped by a passing train, and the cumulative delay of those vehicles. The total vehicular delay is also summarized in Table 16.

- 54 - October 27, 2003


Table 16. Train Volume and Delay at East Marginal Way Grade Crossing

Existing

2015 No Action

2015 Scenario A

2015 Scenario B

Number of Train Moves per Day Local Trains, Switching Movements, & Empty Cars 22 34 34 37 City of Seattle & King County Garbage Trains 0 6 6 6 T-5 Trains 3 5 5 6 T-18 Trains 1 4 4 4 Total 26 49 49 53

Blockage Time - Minutes per Day Local Trains, Switching Movements, & Empty Cars 63.1 100.0 100.0 109.4 City of Seattle & King County Garbage Trains 0.0 84.8 84.8 84.8 T-5 Trains 47.0 77.5 77.5 93.9 T-18 Trains 14.1 54.3 54.3 54.3 Total 124.2 316.6 316.6 342.4

Cumulative Vehicle Delay (Hours/Day) 83.9 380.2 380.2 383.5 Sources: Existing train volumes from Access Duwamish Study, VZM/TranSystems, Inc., 1997. Garbage train volumes from Seattle Public Utilities, July 2003. Assumes 1 full train for Seattle plus 2 full trains for King County

plus equal number of empty trains returned for loading. Future container train volumes from VZM/TranSystems and Heffron Transportation. The analysis shows that the total number of daily train movements crossing East Marginal Way could increase from 26 currently to 49 in the year 2015. If activity were consolidated at T-5 and T-18, and utilization of the on-dock intermodal rail yards were maximized, the number of train movements could increase to 53. This includes empty trains and light-engine switches. The total blockage time on East Marginal Way could increase from about 124 minutes per day now to about 320 minutes (5.3 hours) per day in the future. Additional trains at T-5 could increase the block-age time to about 340 minutes (5.7 hours) per day. These blockage times suggest that the rail crossing would be blocked for nearly one-fourth of the entire day. It should be noted that the potential garbage trains associated with the proposed solid-waste transfer facility would represent about 25% of the to-tal blockage time. Cumulative vehicular delay to cars and trucks would also increase substantially from about 84 hours per day to 380 hours per day. This is the total delay experienced by all vehicles stopped at the crossing. The East Marginal Way Grade-Separation Project, now in design by the Port of Seattle, is critical to reducing these potential delays. This project should be a “high priority” project for all development scenarios. (Information regarding the East Marginal Way Grade-Separation Project was presented previously in the Projects Now in Planning/Design section (Chapter 4) of this report.)

- 55 - October 27, 2003


East Marginal Way/Diagonal Avenue

Port trucks currently access the Argo Yard from East Marginal Way at Diagonal Avenue. This requires southbound trucks to enter the main flow of East Marginal Way (SR-99 at this point) from the ramps that connect to it south of surface Spokane Street, weave across three lanes of traffic, and turn left onto Diagonal Avenue. This can be a difficult and dangerous maneuver for trucks to make, particularly during peak times when heavy traffic volumes exist on this section of SR-99. The weav-ing distance is approximately 0.3 miles, and vehicles traveling southbound out of downtown often exceed the posted speed limit. Port of Seattle staff investigated four options to eliminate the weave for trucks:

1. Provide jug-handle turn at East Marginal Way/Diagonal Avenue. A jug-handle turn facility would allow trucks to exit East Marginal Way on the right-hand (west side) of the street, turn left onto Diagonal Avenue, and then cross East Marginal Way at the existing signalized intersection.

2. Provide “North Access” to the Argo Yard that could be accessed from East Mar-ginal Way under SR-99. Until late 2001, trucks could access the Argo Yard via a dirt road located parallel to the UP lead tracks. This road was approximately an eastern extension of Duwamish Avenue. This North Gate allowed trucks to access and egress the Argo Yard without entering the main stream of SR-99. Since that time, UP has re-configured some of its northern tracks and uses a portion of the old road for storage. It may be possible to re-establish a northern access to the new Argo Gate that would use portions of the UP property, Terminal 106 property, and City right-of-way.

3. Reroute traffic to 1st Avenue S. This option would direct trucks east on Spokane Street to 1st Avenue S and south to Denver Avenue S. Issues associated with this route are the at-grade crossing of the SIG Yard lead tracks at Surface Spokane Street, and the fact that left turns from northbound 1st Avenue S to westbound Spokane Street are prohibited.

4. Reroute traffic further south on East Marginal Way. This option would direct southbound trucks to S Hudson Street and east to Colorado Avenue and north again to the Argo gate. This option would increase the weaving distance for trucks across East Marginal Way, but would also increase the travel distance.

Traffic operations analysis was performed for the CTAS Update to determine how three of access configurations—existing, jug handle or north access—would operate. The level of service and aver-age vehicular delay for each option are summarized on Table 17.

- 56 - October 27, 2003


Table 17. PM Peak Hour Level of Service Summary – East Marginal Way/Diagonal Avenue

Existing (Year 2002) Year 2015 with Full Dray to Argo LOS a Delay b LOS Delay

Existing intersection configuration C 20.2 C 23.4

With jug-handle turn on west side of intersection C 20.5 D 35.7

With north access to Argo B 19.0 C 20.3 a LOS = Level of service b Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle Note: All LOS determined using the Highway Capacity Manual methodology and the Synchro 5.0 software. Levels of service were

determined for the PM peak hour condition, which is the worst-case condition for this intersection. As shown above, a jug-handle turn on East Marginal Way would cause very little change in the existing level of service. However, as background traffic volumes on East Marginal Way increase and as truck volumes increase due to increase dray movements to Argo by the year 2015, a jug-handle turn could substantially increase delay at the subject intersection. In the future, a jug-handle could degrade intersection operations from LOS C to LOS D. Although the intersection would operate worse due to the higher volume of crossing truck movements, the jug-handle would eliminate the weave from the right lane (where trucks enter SR-99) to the left-turn lane. For both the existing and future conditions, providing a north access to Argo, which would reduce truck turning movements at the East Marginal Way/Diagonal Avenue intersection, would improve traffic operations. Based on this analysis, the Port of Seattle should work with its partners (City, Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board [FMSIB], City of Seattle, UPRR, and trucking groups) to pursue a north access to Argo. It would provide the largest benefit to truckers in terms of both safety and operations by removing them from the mainstream of SR-99 altogether. This is also the option that was also favored by local truckers because it provides the shortest travel distance between the port terminals and Argo Yard.

East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S

As traffic volumes continue to grow across the 1st Avenue S bridge, traffic operations at the East Mar-ginal Way/1st Avenue S intersection are likely to become congested. The northern intersection, where southbound East Marginal Way intersects southbound 1st Avenue S would be the critical location. Level of service analysis performed for this location determined that it currently operates at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak periods. It operates at acceptable levels of service midday. Operations will continue to degrade with growth in traffic. When SR-509 is extended south of Sea-Tac Airport to Interstate 5, operations could be further degraded. The level of service would not be affected by any development scenario at the port since only a small percentage of the total traffic would be port-related. No planning is yet being done related to potential congestion at the East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S intersection. Traffic operations will continue to degrade with growth in traffic. In addition, when SR-509 is extended south of Sea-Tac Airport to Interstate 5, operations could be further degraded. There are unlikely to be simple solutions to improve level of service at this intersection. The intersec-tion already has many lanes in each direction with multiple-lane turns to and from the bridge and 1st

- 57 - October 27, 2003


Avenue S. Potential solutions thus would require grade-separation of one or more of the critical movements (a partial interchange). An example would be to grade-separate the northbound movement from the 1st Avenue S bridge to northbound East Marginal Way such that it crosses over the southbound 1st Avenue S movement onto the bridge. Further study related to the benefit and con-struction feasibility of various improvement options should be performed.

East Marginal Way North of Spokane Street

In 1997, the Port of Seattle constructed an access road that connected the north end of T-25 to the south end of T-30. This access road was implemented by cordoning off a portion of the existing East Marginal Way right-of-way with jersey barriers. The lane configuration on East Marginal Way was narrowed from three lanes to two lanes to accommodate this change. This roadway was constructed to allow non-street-legal trucks to drive between the two terminals and allowed an unneeded portion of one terminal to be used for excess storage to support the other terminal. Even though neither T-25 nor T-30 are currently being used for container operations, the roadway between the two terminals still exists. Assuming Hanjin remains at T-46 and increases its dray movements to SIG, truck volumes approaching SIG may require a longer center-left-turn lane. The access road between T-25 and T-30 currently restricts the length of the East Marginal Way left-turn lane. If additional left-turn storage is required, or if the slip between T-25 and T-30 is ever filled, it is recommended that the Port remove the terminal connection road. The section of East Marginal Way between Hanford Street and Spokane Street does not have a two-way-left-turn lane. Growth on the old Rainier Cold Storage site could increase left-turns in this sec-tion. A left-turn lane serving this site would reduce potential delays to truck traffic destined to the SIG Yard. This could be accomplished by redesignating one of the two northbound lanes as a left-turn lane. If redevelopment is proposed for this site, the Port should work with the land developer to reconfigure East Marginal Way and provide this left-turn lane. East Marginal Way between Atlantic Street and Spokane Street has a bike lane striped on both sides of the roadway. The Access Duwamish project evaluated options for constructing an off-road bike path that would allow the bike lanes to be eliminated. The recommended plan put the bike path on the east side of the roadway, which could occur if the Whatcom Yard is ever reconfigured or relocated. This change would have benefited the prior T-25 and T-30 by removing bicycle conflicts at the driveways to those two terminals. Assuming Hanjin were to remain at T-46, this change could also benefit those truck movements by reducing potential conflicts with through trucks on East Marginal Way; however, the change is less of a priority than when container terminals were located along this street. The change to the bike lane should be considered only in conjunction with changes to the Whatcom Yard and/or the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

East Marginal Way Overweight Route

Assuming Hanjin remains at T-46, it would continue to dray containers to the nearby SIG and Argo Yards. Studies have shown that creation of an on-dock intermodal yard at T-46 is either unfeasible or requires too much space. In addition, plans for the Alaskan Way Viaduct could limit rail access. Sev-eral ports in California have adopted regulations and policies that allow overweight containers to be drayed on public streets. Similar regulations may be possible in Seattle. Because T-5 and T-18 trucks have to cross bridges, it is not possible to provide an overweight route to these terminals.

- 58 - October 27, 2003


Information from the Washington State Patrol’s (WSP) 1991 Containerized Cargo Study was used to derive the volume of overweight trucks that T-46 could generate if the containers were all transported on a standard chassis. The WSP study compiled weight data from 14,416 trucks at the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma. Overall, 21.5% of the trucks exceeded weight limitations, with export loads having a higher violation rate (28%) than import loads (12%). Twenty-foot containers were found to be more likely than longer containers to be in violation of weight limits. WSP found that all but one of the 3,100 trucks with overweight loads could have complied with weight limitations by using an alterna-tive chassis (or “super chassis”). Applying these rates to T-46’s forecast, an estimated 740 boxes per week (of the total 3,480 boxes per week drayed to SIG) could be overweight if loaded onto a standard chassis. Most trucks could comply with the state’s weight regulations using an alternate or “super” chassis. In 1997, trucking firms report that the cost to use a super chassis to dray a container from the Port’s ma-rine terminals to the SIG or Argo yard would be $50 to $60 more per move than if a regular chassis were used. If all of the overweight containers were moved by super chassis, the additional costs to T-46 are estimated to range from $1.9 million to $2.3 million per year (assuming 52 weeks per year). Besides the cost, there are supply and operational issues associated with using a super chassis to dray an overweight container to the rail yard. A truck driver entering a terminal does not know if the con-tainer to be hauled is overweight. If the container is overweight, it is difficult to obtain a super chassis to move it. By some accounts from trucking companies, super chassis represent less that one percent of the total chassis fleet. It also increases the time a trucker spends in the terminal because the over-weight container must be unloaded from the regular chassis. Because of this and the very short distance that the containers need to be hauled, most containers drayed to and from the rail yards are moved on a standard chassis. Trucking firms report that they do use super chassis when an over-weight container needs to go on the highway. WSDOT’s Overweight Container Study recommended that any action taken in Washington should reflect consideration of the impact on the efficiency of the overall transportation system, the competi-tiveness of Washington ports relative to other west coast ports, and the state’s economy. The existing intermodal transportation system—from ship to rail— is set up to maximize the weight per container. The problem is that the maximum container payload allowed on the ship or the train is higher than allowed on the street. Ports or marine terminals without on-dock rail yards or without exemptions for overweight truck movements are at a disadvantage with those that do. Several regulatory options were evaluated as part of previous work for the Access Duwamish Truck Mobility Report. These options are: A. Allow Overweight Truck Crossing of Public Streets. This option would change the existing state law to allow an overweight truck to cross a public street between a marine terminal and a rail terminal. Regulations for size, weight, and load of trucks are outlined in RCW 46.44. The existing state law limits the gross load on a single axle to 20,000 pounds and on a tandem axle to 34,000 pounds depending on the axle configuration. The maximum gross load is 105,500 pounds. The City of Seattle’s weight limits are the same as the state’s (SMC 11.23.250). The state law provides exceptions for certain types of equipment such as farm implements (RCW 46.44.130) and logging trucks (RCW 46.44.047). An exception for marine-to-rail terminal dray movements should also be explored given the following conditions:

1. The overweight truck would travel less than 500 feet across or along a public street.

- 59 - October 27, 2003


2. The crossing of a public street could be controlled with a traffic signal or another mechanism.

3. The road pavement at the crossing location be maintained by the port or railroad.

As mentioned above, an exception for overweight truck movements between the marine and rail termi-nals would benefit the Port of Seattle and the railroads. It is also desired by many trucking companies. There are several locations within the Port of Seattle area where such an exception could be applied. The most immediate would be the crossing between T-46 and the truck-only access to the North SIG Yard. An exclusive truck road is proposed from the east side of East Marginal Way into North SIG. Allowing overweight trucks to use this route would require a short crossing of East Marginal Way at Atlantic Street. The intersection is proposed to be signalized as part of the City of Seattle’s Alaskan Way surface street project. A change in the state law may also have application in other port areas such as across 11th Avenue at the Port of Tacoma. B. Exempt Overweight Trucks in Designated Port Areas Under Certain Conditions. This option would designate an area surrounding port facilities where certain types of overweight movements would be exempt from state and city weight requirements. The Port of Oakland has created such a program through which trucking firms can modify existing chassis by adding a third axle and obtain an annual permit to operate that chassis within a designated area. The program also restricts the time that overweight trucks can operate to separate them from the peak commuter periods. A program similar to the Port of Oakland’s could be established in the Port of Seattle area. The desig-nated area should include East Marginal Way from Diagonal Avenue to the T-46 gate, as well as Han-ford Street between East Marginal Way and the SIG Yard. Because dray movements from T-5 and T-18 cross two bridges (the Spokane Street Swing Bridge and the fixed bridge over the East Waterway), it is unlikely that the overweight area could extend west to include T-18 and T-5. C. Create an Overweight Truck Route Through SIG or the Whatcom Yard. This option would create a separate corridor, either on railroad or City-franchised property, to accommodate overweight trucks. The route could either go through the SIG Yard by removing one existing storage track between the intermodal loading tracks and SR-99, or it could go through the Whatcom Yard by removing a storage track on the west side of SR-99. Under either configuration, the roadway would be 24-feet wide to accommodate two-directional truck movements. Because both overweight truck routes are located on the east side of East Marginal Way, this option would have to be combined with Option A above in order to provide overweight access to the marine terminal. One disadvantage of this option is that it only serves overweight movements from T-46 to Main SIG. It would not provide access to the Argo Yard. Another disadvantage is the loss of a storage track in either the SIG or Whatcom Yard. D. Extend Overweight Truck Route to Argo. The potential to extend the overweight corridor dis-cussed in Option C above to the Argo Yard was evaluated. Between Hanford Street and Spokane Street, a route could be created under SR-99. This would likely require a partial vacation of the public right-of-way in this location, or an exception to allow overweight trucks on this corridor. Recommendation. Option A is likely the easiest and least expensive to implement, and would pro-vide immediate benefit to Hanjin assuming they remain at T-46. The other options would require either capital or operational costs that could exceed the benefit of the program. Because T-5 and T-18 trucks have to cross bridges, neither terminal is likely to benefit from an overweight corridor. Therefore, only Option A is recommended.

- 60 - October 27, 2003


6.4. Spokane Street Viaduct

The Spokane Street Viaduct would be the primary link between T-5, T-18 and I-5 with connections north to I-90. In addition, the Viaduct currently provides an east-west grade separation of the SIG Yard and Whatcom Yard lead tracks. For example, container trucks with local destinations (e.g., MacMillan Piper) can access the Viaduct using the existing 1st Avenue S ramps, and exit the Viaduct using the Harbor Island Ramps. This takes them over the SIG Yard Tracks. The same route is avail-able in reverse. There are two major bottlenecks along the Spokane Street Viaduct that primarily affect eastbound traffic. One of these is the loop ramp between the eastbound Viaduct and northbound SR-99. This ramp can become congested, particularly during the morning commute. Although few port trucks use this ramp, congestion on the ramp can affect eastbound through traffic. Another bottleneck is the in-terchange with I-5. Congestion occurs at these ramps during both peak hours, and can occur during the midday if I-5 is congested due to an incident. Also, as congestion grows at these locations, more commuters may divert to surface routes such as Spokane Street, 1st Avenue S, and East Marginal Way where they would compete with port trucks.

Spokane Street Viaduct Improvement Project

The City of Seattle has an improvement project designed for the Spokane Street Viaduct that is just awaiting funding. As previously discussed, this project would build an additional structure on the north side of the existing viaduct to allow all lanes to be widened to 12 feet, provide for an additional westbound merging lane, and provide shoulders. The new structure would seismically strengthen the existing viaduct. The project would also relocate the existing on- and off-ramps from 4th Avenue S to 1st Avenue S to reduce the weaving conflicts near I-5. The widening project would improve safety on the Viaduct, and would improve westbound traffic flow by removing the short weaving section be-tween I-5 and the existing 4th Avenue S ramps. It would not, however, improve either of the two existing bottlenecks that affect eastbound traffic. The Spokane Street Viaduct Project is needed and the Port should support it for all of its development scenarios. Depending on the development scenario, approximately 31% to 34% of all port truck trips would use either the Spokane Street Viaduct or Surface Spokane Street east of East Marginal Way. Without the proposed project, there is a greater chance that the existing viaduct could be damaged in an earthquake. If that were to happen, it is possible that both the viaduct and surface Spokane Street would be closed to traffic while the structure is repaired or rebuilt. Loss of the Viaduct would substantially affect truck access to the Port’s terminals, as well as rail operations in the Duwamish area. In addition, the wider lanes will improve safety and reduce delay associated with incidents on the viaduct.

Spokane Street Viaduct Interchanges with I-5 and SR-99

The Port should also work with the City of Seattle and WSDOT to begin planning improvements for the two existing bottlenecks on the Spokane Street Viaduct at SR-99 and I-5. Operations and im-provements at the I-5/Spokane Street Viaduct interchange should be considered with any analysis of the I-5 corridor. Improvements at the SR-99/Spokane Street Viaduct interchange were preliminarily evaluated as part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct project. However, improvement plans for the inter-change were cut when the project scope was scaled back for budgetary reasons. Further study of the SR-99/Spokane Street Viaduct may be warranted in the future.

- 61 - October 27, 2003


6.5. SIG Yard Access and Rail Crossing Enhancements

Truck access to the SIG and Argo Rail Yards is critical, particularly for the development scenarios for which heavy dray movements would occur (No Change and Scenario A). Access improvements to the Argo Yard were discussed above with the East Marginal Way corridor. Access to the SIG Yard occurs from S Hanford Street, and trucks from the port generally use East Marginal Way to access Hanford Street. The existing SIG Gate is blocked whenever trains are switched into and out of the yard from the south. Fortunately, most switching activity is performed at night and therefore daytime gate disruptions are minimal.

Planning for replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Monorail is creating a need to consider significant alterations to the existing SIG Yard. There is strong potential that the SIG Yard’s northern lead track and the adjacent Whatcom Storage Yard will have to be relocated to accommodate any new SR-99 alignment. Because the Viaduct and Monorail projects are still in early stages of planning, it is impossible to identify any specific future impacts or potential configurations of the SIG Yard.

If the SIG Yard requires a new configuration, the design should consider access connections to the port’s container terminals. Elements to consider should include:

• Locating the truck gate to minimize blockages associated with train switching.

• Locating storage tracks so that switching maneuvers to and from the these tracks do not block the primary access routes.

• Providing adequate on-site queuing so that adjacent arterial streets are not blocked by truck queues. This report recommends that primary truck access to the SIG Yard remain via East Marginal Way where overflow queuing capacity currently exists underneath SR-99. Should access be considered via Spokane Street, over-capacity should be built into the gate queue to avoid any blockage of Spokane Street.

Another rail-related improvement that would benefit vehicular mobility in the area is a direct rail con-nection between the Harbor Island lead tracks and the BNSF mainline. Currently, full BNSF trains from Harbor Island and West Seattle destined to or from the BNSF mainline must enter the SIG Yard because there is no direct connection to the mainline. Each movement (to or from the mainline) crosses surface Spokane Street twice. This causes additional blockages and delay for truckers using surface Spokane Street, and the other surface streets to the north, including Hanford Street where the SIG Gate is cur-rently located. A direct connection to the mainline would reduce delays at these crossings.

- 62 - October 27, 2003


6.6. SR-519 Corridor

SR-519 is the primary connection between T-46 and I-5/I-90. WSDOT is currently constructing Phase 1 of the SR-519 Intermodal Access Project, which includes the new grade-separated east-west roadway at Atlantic Street between 1st and 4th Avenues S, a single-point urban interchange between Atlantic Street and 4th Avenue S, and an on-ramp to eastbound I-90 and I-5. The City of Seattle expects to begin construction on its proposed Alaskan Way Surface Street improvements in early 2004, which are also part of the SR-519 corridor. These improvements were previously shown on Figure 23. Phase 2 of the SR-519 improvement project—the element that would have grade-separated Royal Brougham Way—is in flux. There are four potential futures for this project:

1. Retain surface Royal Brougham Way – This alternative will exist upon completion of Phase 1 Atlantic Street. The existing Royal Brougham Way and at-grade railroad cross-ing by the BNSF Mainline are proposed to be retained until further improvements are made.

2. Construct Royal Brougham Way Grade-Separation per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). This would construct the grade-separation as originally proposed with a connection from westbound I-90. Under this condition, Royal Brougham Way would be a one-way street in the westbound direction, and Atlantic Street would be one-way in the eastbound direction.

3. Construct Royal Brougham Way Grade-Separation per the City’s current pro-posal (Option 4B). This alternative would construct a one-lane grade-separation of the BNSF Railroad tracks for local westbound traffic only; there would be no direct connection to the I-90 off-ramp as previously proposed. Surface Royal Brougham Way would end at the BNSF tracks with a cul-de-sac that would provide access into the stadium parking garage.

4. Construct a different configuration for Royal Brougham Way or in a different alignment than has previously been conceived. This would evaluate alternatives to both the MOA and City proposals.

Travel routes between I-90/I-5 and T-46 are different depending on the future configuration of SR-519.

illustrates the potential routes, which assume completion of the surface Alaskan Way improvements. The advantages and disadvantages as they relate to container truck access are also listed. Figure 29

As shown, the original Phase 2 design, which would have provided a direct connection to I-90 for westbound traffic and one-way flow on Royal Brougham Way, would provide the best access for T-46 trucks. The next best option would be to complete Phase 1 and leave Royal Brougham Way as it is today. This would provide two routes to the terminal, even though one of the routes could be blocked by a train. The City’s proposal would create circuitous routing for trucks accessing T-46.

- 63 - October 27, 2003


Figure 29. Westbound Travel Routes for Various SR-519 Phase 2 Options a

Retain Existing Royal Brougham Way with At-Grade Railroad Crossing

Advantages: • Provides two routes to T-46 • Two routes improves reliability during events

Disadvantages: • Trains crossing Royal Brougham Way could

delay container trucks • Alternate route via Atlantic Street requires turn

onto 1st Avenue S since there would be no direct connection between westbound Atlantic Street and T-46.

SR-519 per Original Design (MOA)

Advantages: • Direct connection from I-90 to Alaskan Way • Increased capacity with one-way flow on Royal

Brougham Way and Atlantic Street Disadvantages: • If Royal Brougham Way connects to new ramps

for the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the intersection of 1st Avenue S/Royal Brougham Way is projected to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour.

SR-519 per City Proposal

Advantages: • None

Disadvantages: • Requires all trucks to use Atlantic Street, which

has no direct connection to T-46 access. Trucks would need to turn onto 1st Avenue S and use either Royal Brougham Way or Massachusetts Street to access the terminal.

• Two-way operation of Atlantic Street would cre-ate congested intersection at 1st Avenue S.

Alas

kan W

ay

Color

ado A

venu

e S

1st A

venu

e S

Royal Brougham Way

S Atlantic Street

T-46 Access

S Mass. Street

To I-5 & I-90

4th A

venu

e SAlternate Routeif train blocking

Royal Brougham Way

Alas

kan W

ay

Color

ado A

venu

e S

1st A

venu

e S

Royal Brougham Way

S Atlantic Street

T-46 Access

S Mass. Street

To I-5 & I-90

4th A

venu

e S

Alas

kan W

ay

Color

ado A

venu

e S

1st A

venu

e S

Royal Brougham Way

S Atlantic Street

T-46 Access

S Mass. Street

To I-5 & I-90

4th A

venu

e S

Alternate Route

a Travel routes assume existing configuration for the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Note: Different line patterns denote alternative travel routes to the site.

- 64 - October 27, 2003


Based on the analysis of the potential SR-519 futures, the following strategy is recommended:

1. Retain surface street Royal Brougham Way until a suitable alternative that provides good access for trucks to T-46 is implemented.

2. Work with WSDOT and the City to evaluate alternatives to Phase 2. The City’s current proposal would not provide adequate access to the T-46 truck gate.

3. If an alternative is found that does not provide a direct connection between westbound I-90 and T-46 via Royal Brougham Way, then evaluate changes to the Atlantic Street/Alaskan Way intersection to provide direct access to the terminal from westbound Atlantic Street.

6.7. Alaskan Way Viaduct Planning

Planning and design for replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct are now underway. A Draft EIS for the project is scheduled to be completed in Spring 2004, with selection of a preferred alternative occurring shortly thereafter. The Viaduct is being planned to accommodate traffic for the life of the project, which could be a 50-year horizon. Improvements associated with the Viaduct should be planned for the Port’s worst-case condition that could occur within this time horizon. One major element that is included in all of the Alaskan Way Viaduct alternatives is an interchange at Royal Brougham Way and Atlantic Street. The configuration of this interchange would differ depending on whether SR-99 is at-grade, above grade, or ascending from a tunnel. Construction of the westward extension of these interchanges could be phased or modified to maintain access and egress from the T-46 truck gate. For example, in the short-term, only the S Atlantic Street interchange would likely need to extend into the terminal to provide access to the truck gate. The extension of Royal Brougham Way could be delayed until needed. All of the Alaskan Way Viaduct alternatives would require either relocation of the SIG Yard tail track from the west side of Alaskan Way—where it is proposed to be located as part of the SR-519 pro-ject—to the east side of Alaskan Way or replacement of this tail track with other switching options at the south end of the SIG Yard. This is because most alternatives have SR-99 at or near grade adjacent to T-46 and the railroad tracks could not cross SR-99. The Port should work with BNSF to evaluate how relocating or shortening these tracks would affect traffic operations along Alaskan Way and other streets in the area, and how it could affect operations within the SIG Yard. Finally, maintaining access and egress to T-46 during construction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct will be critical. The Port should continue to work with WSDOT and City designers to assure adequate ac-cess is maintained. A dedicated access for trucks only on East Marginal Way between Atlantic Street and Hanford Street during all or part of the construction period should be considered.

- 65 - October 27, 2003


6.8. Other Improvements

Pavement Management

Each year SDOT revises the list of City streets that are candidates for resurfacing. A description of the pavement management system was described earlier. Several locations along key corridors serv-ing the port were identified as having “fair” or “poor” pavement conditions. The Port should work with the City to make sure pavement maintenance on these corridors is a priority.

Lander Street Grade-Separation Project

SDOT recently completed a Type, Size & Location (TS&L) study of a potential railroad grade-sepa-ration at or in the vicinity of Lander Street. The preferred alternative would grade-separate S Lander Street from the railroad tracks by constructing a new elevated structure in that corridor. The structure would meet existing grade east of 1st Avenue S and at approximately 3rd Avenue S. The next phase of this project would proceed to final design. Construction is scheduled to occur in approximately 2008; however, no funding has yet been secured for this project. The Lander Street project is not one of the key corridors serving the Port of Seattle, and would serve very few port trucks. However, a grade-separation at Lander Street would reduce traffic on Atlantic Street and the Spokane Street Viaduct, which are key corridors for the port. Lander Street could also serve local truck movements between the port terminals and cargo transfer businesses such as MacMillan Piper. Finally, the Lander Street grade-separation supports the FAST Corridor effort to improve rail safety and minimize train/vehicular conflicts by separating these modes. For these rea-sons, the Port of Seattle should support the City’s project.

Duwamish ITS Project

The City of Seattle’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) project for the Duwamish industrial area includes many elements that would benefit port trucks. These include:

• Signal interconnection at the intersections on 1st and 4th Avenues adjacent to the BNSF Mainline tracks. The highest priority for the Port should be those on Royal Brougham Way, Spokane Street, and Lander Street.

• Cameras, which provide real-time information about congestion to dispatchers, particu-larly those on Surface Spokane Street, the West Seattle Freeway, and East Marginal Way corridors.

• Advance notification signs to alert drivers that the Spokane Street Swing Bridge is open.

- 66 - October 27, 2003


7. RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes all of the improvements recommended in the previous section by corridor.

West Marginal Way

1. Reconfigure West Marginal Way/SW Spokane Street intersection. Change the existing lane configuration at this intersection to improve the level of service from LOS E to LOS B. The recommended changes include providing designated left-turn lanes on northwest-bound West Marginal Way and eastbound Chelan Avenue, and a change in the signal phasing to provide concurrent through movements on the same two approaches. Improve directional signage and lane markings approaching the intersection.

2. Improve access/egress from T-115. The driveway to T-115 is located on West Marginal Way very close to the Highland Park Way intersection. Left-turn egress to West Marginal Way is difficult, particularly if a queue extends north from the intersection. The Port should evaluate options for moving this access further north or locating the access on the south side of the ter-minal to Highland Park Way. An unused two-way-left-turn-lane exists on Highland Park Way east of West Marginal Way that could serve terminal traffic.

3. Consider alternate locations/alignments for proposed bike trail. Prior proposals for the bike lane along West Marginal Way would have eliminated a traffic lane and/or the center two-way-left-turn lane. The Port should not support the bike facility if it reduces truck mobility in this corridor. Options for locating the trail off the street, including on private easements, should be considered.

SW/S Spokane Street (surface street)

4. Provide advance notification for openings of the SW Spokane Street Swing Bridge at the terminals. The City of Seattle has proposed to interconnect the Spokane Street Swing Bridge with flashing message signs at several locations. These include: southbound SR-99 at T-30, southbound 1st Avenue S north of Spokane Street, northbound 1st Avenue S south of Spokane Street, and eastbound Spokane Street east of Harbor Avenue. Additional signs that alert truck-ers exiting T-5 and T-18 that the Swing Bridge is open could be installed at:

• T-5 Access Ramp approaching Spokane Street

• Southbound Klickitat Avenue near Spokane Street (This sign should be modified to state: “Swing Bridge Open When Flashing.”)

5. Implement restrictions on sailboat moorages at Port-owned facilities on the Duwamish River. Some openings of the Spokane Street Swing Bridge are caused by sailboats moored along the Duwamish River, including the Port-controlled T-102 Marina. One measure to re-duce the potential for bridge openings is to restrict moorage for tall-masted vessels that may require a bridge opening.

6. Lower Spokane Street improvements. The City of Seattle proposes to upgrade the pavement and U-turn facilities on surface Spokane Street between 6th Avenue S and East Marginal Way in conjunction with the Spokane Street Viaduct project. The Port should support this project, which would improve surface Spokane Street for container trucks.

- 67 - October 27, 2003


In addition, the Port should work with the City of Seattle to install a barrier on SW Spokane Street at the East Waterway Bridge to prevent eastbound-to-westbound U-turn movements.

East Marginal Way

7. Construct grade-separation of Harbor Island/West Seattle lead railroad tracks. Vehicle-related delays at the location where the BNSF and UP tracks cross East Marginal Way will continue to increase as train volumes at T-5 and T-18 increase, and if Seattle and/or King County develop solid-waste transfer facilities on Harbor Island. The Port should continue with its plan to construct a grade-separated roadway for trucks on the East Marginal Way corridor south of S Spokane Street. If the solid-waste transfer facilities are implemented, the agencies involved should contribute to the cost of the grade-separation.

8. Support a “North Access” to the Argo Yard that could be accessed from East Marginal Way under SR-99. Until late 2001, trucks could access the Argo Yard via a dirt road located parallel to the UP lead tracks. This road was approximately an eastern extension of Duwamish Avenue. This North Gate allowed trucks to access and egress the Argo Yard without entering the main stream of SR-99. At that time, UP reconfigured and secured its yard, which elimi-nated this access. It may be possible to re-establish a northern access to the new Argo Gate that would use portions of the UP property, Terminal 106 property, and City right-of-way.

9. Evaluate long-term improvements at the East Marginal Way/1st Avenue S intersection. This intersection currently operates at LOS F, and congestion would worsen by 2015 due to increased traffic growth across the 1st Avenue S bridge. Although port traffic would be a very small percentage of the overall traffic through this intersection, congestion could delay truck movements. Long-term improvements should be evaluated, which may need to include grade-separating one or more movements at this intersection. The Port should work with the City of Seattle and WSDOT to initiate such a study.

10. Provide two-way-left-turn lane between Hanford Street and Spokane Street. If redevelop-ment on the old Rainier Cold Storage site occurs and would generate additional traffic, the Port should work with the developer to restripe the roadway and provide a center turn lane for access/egress to this site.

11. Remove local connector route between T-25 and T-30. The separate one-lane roadway that connects T-25 to T-30 was used when both were operating as container terminals. The road allowed containers to be drayed with non-road-legal equipment into an auxiliary storage yard. This road, however, eliminates the center turn lane on East Marginal Way, and shortens the length of the left turn lane for T-46 trucks destined to SIG. If the connector route is no longer needed, it should be removed.

12. East Marginal Way Separated Bikeway. If changes are made to East Marginal Way as part of the Viaduct project and/or if the Whatcom Yard is reconfigured, that project should also construct a separate off-street bicycle path on the east side of East Marginal Way.

13. Provide overweight truck route between T-46 and rail yards. Assuming Hanjin remains at T-46, work with the City of Seattle and the State Legislature to change the existing state law to allow an overweight truck to cross a public street between a marine terminal and a rail terminal. The existing state law (RCW 46.44) limits the gross load on a single axle to 20,000 pounds and on a tandem axle to 34,000 pounds depending on the axle configuration. The maximum gross

- 68 - October 27, 2003


load is 105,500 pounds. The City of Seattle’s weight limits are the same as the state’s (SMC 11.23.250). The state law provides exceptions for certain types of equipment such as farm im-plements (RCW 46.44.130) and logging trucks (RCW 46.44.047). An exception for marine-to-rail terminal dray movements should also be explored given the following conditions:

• The overweight truck would travel less than 500 feet across or along a public street. • The crossing of a public street could be controlled with a traffic signal or another

mechanism. • The road pavement at the crossing location be maintained by the port or railroad.

Spokane Street Viaduct

14. Support the City’s project to improve the Spokane Street Viaduct. The City is waiting for funding to construct the fourth phase of the Spokane Street Viaduct Improvement Project, which would widen the viaduct to provide full 12-foot lanes and would relocate the ramps for westbound traffic. Wider lanes and shoulders would improve truck mobility, safety, and reduce incident-related delays.

15. Improve interchange with Interstate 5. Work with WSDOT and City of Seattle to evaluate improvement options for the Spokane Street Viaduct/Interstate 5 interchange.

16. Improve the eastbound-to-northbound connection from the West Seattle Freeway to SR-99. Congestion on the existing loop ramp impedes eastbound truck movements between Harbor Island/West Seattle and Interstate 5. Also, as congestion grows at this location, more commuters may divert to surface routes such as surface Spokane Street, 1st Avenue S, and East Marginal Way where they would compete with port trucks. The Port should work with City of Seattle and WSDOT to study long-term improvements to this interchange.

Rail Yard Access

8. Support a new “North Access” to the Argo Yard. (See discussion above.)

17. Consider changes to access if SIG Yard is expanded. Changes to the SIG Yard could occur in conjunction with the proposed Alaskan Way Viaduct project. If the SIG Yard and/or its associated lead tracks are reconfigured, the design of these features should consider the access connections to the port’s container terminals. Elements to consider should include:

a. Locating the truck gate to minimize blockages associated with train switching.

b. Locating storage tracks so that switching maneuvers to and from the storage tracks do not block the primary access routes.

c. Providing adequate on-site queuing so that adjacent arterial streets are not blocked by truck queues.

18. Support direct rail connection to BNSF Mainline from Harbor Island lead tracks. A connection between the Harbor Island lead tracks and the BNSF Mainline would reduce switching movements across S Spokane Street. Currently, trains from Harbor Island must pull into SIG and then reverse directions to access the BNSF mainline. Each train crosses Spokane Street twice. The number of turn-around movements would be greatly reduced with a direct connection.

- 69 - October 27, 2003


SR-519

19. Evaluate alternatives to SR-519 Phase 2 Proposal. The City of Seattle’s current proposal for SR-519 does not include the direct connection between westbound I-90 and Royal Brougham Way. All trucks from I-5 and I-90 destined to T-46 would have to use local streets and Atlantic Street to access the terminal. Based on the analysis of the potential SR-519 futures, the following strategy is recommended:

a. Retain surface street Royal Brougham Way until a suitable alternative that provides good access for trucks to T-46 is implemented.

b. Work with WSDOT and the City to evaluate alternatives to Phase 2. The City’s current proposal would not provide adequate access to the T-46 truck gate.

c. If an alternative is found that does not provide a direct connection between westbound I-90 and T-46 via Royal Brougham Way, then evaluate changes to the Atlantic Street/Alaskan Way intersection to provide direct access to the terminal from westbound Atlantic Street.

20. Construct Alaskan Way Surface Street improvements. The City of Seattle’s proposal for the Alaskan Way improvements should be constructed and considered a temporary improve-ment until the Alaskan Way Viaduct project is complete. This improvement must include relocating the SIG Yard tail track to the west side of Alaskan Way so that waterfront traffic destined to and from the east does not queue adjacent to T-46.

Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement

21. Plan Royal Brougham Way and Atlantic Street interchanges for worst-case condition. The Viaduct is being planned to accommodate traffic for the life of the project, which could be a 50-year horizon. Improvements associated with the Viaduct should be planned for the Port’s worst-case condition that could occur within this time horizon.

22. Phase Viaduct improvements, if necessary. Improvements proposed for the Royal Brougham Way and Atlantic Street interchanges should be phased or modified to maintain access and egress from the T-46 truck gate.

23. Evaluate changes to SIG Yard north tail track. Most of the current planning for the Alaskan Way Viaduct includes relocating the SIG Yard north tail track either to the east side of the Viaduct or to the south end of the SIG Yard. This is because most alternatives have SR-99 at or near grade adjacent to T-46 and the railroad tracks could not cross SR-99. The Port should work with the BNSF to evaluate how relocating or shortening the tail track would affect opera-tions at the SIG Yard.

24. Plan access/egress during construction of Viaduct. Access and egress to T-46 during construction of the Viaduct will be critical. Work with WSDOT and City designers to assure adequate access is maintained. Consider a dedicated access for port traffic on East Marginal Way between Atlantic Street and Hanford Street during all or part of the construction period.

- 70 - October 27, 2003


Other Improvements

25. Maintain pavement. Work with the City of Seattle to elevate priority of maintaining pavement on key roadways serving the port terminals.

26. Support Lander Street Grade-Separation Project. The Lander Street project is not one of the key corridors serving the Port of Seattle, and would serve very few port trucks. However, a grade-separation at Lander Street would reduce traffic on Atlantic Street and the Spokane Street Viaduct, which are key corridors for the port. It would also provide FAST Corridor benefits for trains.

27. Duwamish ITS Project. Support City and State Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) pro-jects in the Duwamish Industrial Area. These include advanced signal systems, changeable message signs, advance notification of blockages and events, and other technologies. The elements that should be the highest priorities for the Port of Seattle include interconnecting signals at intersections adjacent to the BNSF mainline tracks, advance notification signs for the Spokane Street Swing Bridge openings, and traffic cameras on the Spokane Street, West Seattle Freeway, and East Marginal Way corridors.

7.2. Priority

Table 18 summarizes the recommendations list. It includes information about which terminals would benefit from each improvement and the relative priority. The “high priority” projects relate to locations where unpredictable and lengthy delays could occur such as at railroad crossing, bridge openings, and locations where incidents/accidents or special events could occur. Other high priorities are relatively simple measures that would improve traffic operations and/or safety for truck movements. The high priorities that the Port of Seattle should pursue include:

• Construct East Marginal Way Grade Separation (project #7 from Table 18)

• Support City’s Duwamish ITS project (project #27)

• Construct Alaskan Way Street Improvements (project #20)

• Provide advance notification of Swing Bridge Openings (project #4, #27)

• Widen lanes on Spokane Street Viaduct (project #14)

• Reconfigure West Marginal Way/Spokane Street intersection (project #1)

• Provide off-street access to Argo Yard (project #8)

• Participate in planning SR-519 Phase 2 to assure good access to T-46 (project #19)

• Assist with planning Alaskan Way Viaduct improvements (project #21, 22, 23 & 24)

• Consider alternatives to bike lane on West Marginal Way (project #3)

- 71 - October 27, 2003

Table 18. Improvement Service and Priority

# Project Corridor T-5 T-18 T-46 T-115 No Action Scenario A Scenario B

1 Reconfigure West Marginal Way/Spokane Street intersection West Marginal Way x High High High

2 Improve access/egress to T-115 West Marginal Way x Medium Medium Medium

3 Consider alternatives to bike lane on West Marginal Way West Marginal Way x High High High

4 Advance notification of Swing Bridge Openings Spokane Street x x High High High

5 Limit sailboat moorage on Duwamish to limit Swing Bridge openings Spokane Street x Low Low Low

6 Improve Lower Spokane Street (Part of Viaduct Improvements) Spokane Street x x Low Low Low

7 Construct East Marginal Way Grade Separation East Marginal Way x x x High High High

8 Provide off-street access to Argo Yard East Marginal Way x x x High High High

9 Evaluate long-term improvements to EMW/1st Avenue S Intersection East Marginal Way x x Medium Medium Medium

10 Provide TWLTL on EMW between Spokane and Hanford Streets East Marginal Way x x Low Medium Low

11 Remove local connector road between T-25 and T-30 East Marginal Way x Low -- --

12 Separate EMW bike lane from street East Marginal Way x Low -- --

13 Provide overweight truck crossing of EMW East Marginal Way x Low -- --

14 Widen lanes on Spokane Street Viaduct Spokane St Viaduct x x Medium High High

15 Study interchange improvements at I-5/Spokane Street Viaduct Spokane St Viaduct x x Low Medium Medium

16 Study interchange improvements at SR 99/WSF Spokane St Viaduct x x Medium Medium Medium

17 Change SIG Yard Access if Yard is expanded/altered Rail Yard Access x x x Medium Medium Medium

18 Provide direct rail connection from Harbor Island lead to BNSF Mainline Rail Yard Access x x Medium Medium Medium

19 Study alternatives to SR 519 Phase II SR 519 x High -- --

20 Construct Alaskan Way Street Improvements SR 519 x High -- --

21 Plan Viaduct replacement for worst-case T-46 condition Alaskan Way Viaduct -- High High

22 Phase Viaduct improvements to maintain T-46 access Alaskan Way Viaduct x High -- --

23 Evaluate changes to SIG Yard lead tracks with Alaskan Way Viaduct Alaskan Way Viaduct x High -- --

24 Plan construction routing and staging for Viaduct near T-46 Alaskan Way Viaduct x High -- --

25 Maintain pavement - Various locations All x x x x Varies Varies Varies

26 Support Lander Street Grade-Separation Other x x x Medium Medium Medium

27 Support City of Seattle ITS Projects Other x x x High High High

Serves: Priority:

- 72 - October 27, 2003


BIBLIOGRAPHY City of Seattle, http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/spokanestreetcontract4.htm, August 2003. Washington State Department of Transportation, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/Viaduct/, August 2003. Washington State Department of Transportation, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ I5DesMoinesWaySouth188St/c2.html, August 2003. Washington State Department of Transportation, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR519/, August 2003. Heffron Transportation, Inc., Access Duwamish Truck Mobility Report (Draft), May 1, 1998. Heffron Transportation, Inc., Truck Gate Delay Benchmarking Study and Truck Driver Opinion Survey (Draft), March 22, 2000. Parsons Brinckerhoff, SR 519 Analysis – Table 1 Summary of Results, March 5, 2003. The Transpo Group, Inc., Port of Seattle Container Terminal Access Study – Final Draft, April 30, 1993.

October 27, 2003

http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/spokanestreetcontract4.htm

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ I5DesMoinesWaySouth188St/c2.html, August 2003.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ I5DesMoinesWaySouth188St/c2.html, August 2003.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR519/, August 2003.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR519/, August 2003.

Date post:	29-Oct-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

CONTAINER TERMINAL ACCESS STUDY Year 2003 Update

Documents